- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
You must log in or register to comment.
“The motive remains unclear” is one of those things that, as a journalist, you know you have to write because it is absolutely the truth, but you hate yourself for every letter of every word because you know how fucking stupid it sounds given the circumstances.
“I mean, there are millions of people with motive. Which one in particular we will hopefully never know”
I feel like this is going to end like Murder on the Orient Express, where…
Tap for spoiler
… it turns out that literally everyone took turns shooting him.
Deny that you know or even saw them. Defend them if they do get caught, through protest, fundraising, bail, etc. Depose those who put them in jail if they are sentenced.
Unless it turns out he was murdered by, for example, an irate shareholder who didn’t make the money he wanted to make.
There is more than one reason he could have been murdered.
Murder bingo, murder scavenger hunt, time traveler trying to stop the future apocalypse no lack of options…
Are you really suggesting that only possible realistic motive to murder him is because of his position at UHC?
I can think of so many plausible scenarios. I just gave you one, here’s another: he was cheating on his wife, so she paid to have him killed, something that actually happens in the real world and doesn’t involved time travelers.
I’m sure you would like this to be a just world where bad people get killed for good reasons, but that’s not how the world works. Hitler’s generals tried to assassinate him and it wasn’t because they thought he was being too mean to the Jews.
Are you really suggesting
nope, just toying around with the concept, figured it would be about 3/5 on the joke scale.
edit: Though if you really wanted to get into it, the words scribed on the casings might direct you to a likely solution. *
Or the words on the casings are intended to direct you to the wrong solution. Because, again in the real world, people who commit premeditated crimes throw police off the scent intentionally.
Ehh, I think Occam would have the better of that here.
In any case. (no pun intended) Maybe they’ll spend a few minutes reflecting on the own mortality while they’re ripping us off thinking there’s no recourse.
Ehh, I think Occam would have the better of that here.
Would you say the same about this?
People commit crimes and then pin the blame on someone else literally every day. It’s like the easiest way to try to get away with a crime.
Ah yes. “The murderer must be playing 5d chess to fool people” angle. It’s an angle, but not a reasonable one. How much Scooby Doo have you watched?
It takes “5D chess” to write vague words on bullet casings?
Possible vs Probable.
Lots of things are possible, sure, but his position and impact on people due to his position does make one very probable.
I am guessing you do not know enough about him personally to know what is the most probable. Maybe he very openly cheats on his wife. That would make his wife hiring a hit man very probable. Maybe he’s swindled someone out of a ton of money on a personal level rather than via UHC. Again, that would make a good motive to kill him.
We do not have enough information here and pretending we do is not very wise.
He MAYBE fucked around on his one wife causing embarrassment.
He CERTAINLY fucked around with THOUSANDS of people causing DEATH.
It’s worthwhile to consider alternatives but it’s unwise to paint all scenarios as equally likely.
It’s also unwise to come to a conclusion when the person who did it hasn’t even been identified.
True, it’s possible he has numerous enemies.
But what I can say is the average person doesn’t have people wanting to kill them. If all things are equal, and given the message written on the casings, there seems to be one that is currently the most probable.
Obviously there are many plausible scenarios, but one of them scales significantly differently than the others.
If there are many plausible scenarios, even if one is the most plausible, it’s silly to assume that’s the one.
It’s only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.
If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.
If I see Zebras, I’ll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I’m wrong all the fucking time, being right isn’t part of my identity.
But until then, if someone says “what do figure those hoofbeats are?” I’m not going to say “50/50 horses or zebras”
Assumptions are claimed to be established facts. That’s what an assumption is. You’re making a claim of fact without having the evidence.
Absolutely, hence why they do have to say that the motive is unclear. While we all have strong theories about why this happened, there are plenty of other possibilities that have to be considered. Could have been taken out by his family for insurance money, could have been a business rival, the guy might have gotten in shit with the mob. At this point they just don’t know.
The impression I got from when I lived in the US is that at his level, US oligarchs generally don’t like getting their hands dirty and there are strong communal disincentives to disrespecting “honour among thieves” laws. All the oligarchs groups will gang up on you if you use direct violence against another oligarch.
From what I’ve read, the “mob” in the US largely has no power, definitely nothing on the level of Brian Thompson. Even transnational groups (Mexican cartels, EU gangs, central American gangs) keep a low profile in the US and make a concentrated effort to avoid publicity.
I will admit, family issues is a possibility. Difficult to say. The business rivalry or mob connection doesn’t seem even in the realm of possibility, but I could be wrong.
Exactly. We just don’t have enough information yet and it is just silly to assume this is some sort of just world where people behind atrocities that are subsequently murdered are murdered because of those atrocities.
He wrote Deny, defend, depose on the bullets. That’s him speaking the language that the insurance industry uses. I would say that broadly, we know his motive. Who the company denied a claim for is the only real question here.
As I said to someone else, do you really believe this was done by pro-Palestine activists?
It is silly to make assumptions based on three words. It’s especially silly to assume someone isn’t smart enough to make police think they’re not the guilty party.
No I don’t think it has anything to do with Palestine, and everything to do with this book
He switched delay to depose to send a clear message to the insurance industry. That message being, “there’s a fourth step that you fuckers have forgotten in your three step strategy.”
Maybe you should have at least read the name of the URL. I didn’t say that this has anything to do with Palestine.
Please, if you’re not going to read the article, at least read the name of the URL and then respond to me accordingly.
If that were the case writing the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose” on the bullet casings was a pretty stupid move, given that it calls attention to the atrocities said shareholder profits from. It seems most likely that the motive is exactly what the bullet casings suggest.
Which is exactly why someone would do it to make the police think it wasn’t for another reason.
Really, I have no idea why all of you assume a criminal will say, “yep! It’s me!”
For some very weird reason it never crossed my mind, and I really do not know why, that I could invest in a huge healthcare corporation whose target it is to provide as little healthcare as possible. But your comment made me think about that that is possible to do.
“It is still unclear which of the potential motives caused the man to pull the trigger”
“deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
He literally left the manifesto there and they can’t figure it out.
He left “A” manifesto. I have never dealt with his company,but if I was hired to kill him I would most definately make look like a disgruntled parent if a dead kid or some such.
Hopefully he(another common assumption) never gets caught and we never know.
Nah, that’s a cop out. They could absolutely find somebody speculating on the motive to quote if they wanted to.
Yeah, just put a random tweet in like they usually do
“The motive remains unclear”
Was it him that got denied, or was it a recently deceased family member?
There’s several options.
That seems like terrible wording. Why not just say the motive is unconfirmed with the suspect if that’s what’s needed to state it as fact?
As of about a month ago there had been ~320 murders in NYC this year.
Yet this single one has captured the media’s attention nationwide and cops seem to be heavily focused on this one.
Because modern society at pretty much every institutional level sees the wealthy and powerful as not just more important than us, but they dont even see us. Hell, compare this to school shootings that only make local news now.
Historically, societies like this end in an incredibly brutal fashion. And until the wealthy and powerful really can build terminator style robot armies…
The masses are always going to win.
It’s kind of the natural consequences of hyper concentration of a finite and essential resource. People rarely sit around and starve voluntarily, and once the majority are starving, people start acting like a mob.
We see it day to day over minor stuff where people just refuse to follow societial norms. Everyday we’re shown that rules don’t really matter, and none of the people who matter are held accountable. If someone isn’t physically stopped from doing something, they take that as permission. Hell, that was the defense of most 1/6ers.
The social contract was invalidated a long time ago, people are just now realizing it. And that’s the only thing that really seperates us from animals.
Crashing out is gonna be the norm pretty fucking soon, I don’t think we have 4 years or that trump will be able to hold society together.
There’s a very high chance we’re gonna live in some interesting times.
I think the biggest thing to emphasize - and you mentioned it but I think it bears repeating over and over - is that when the system fails to enforce justice, people will seek justice themselves. This is the social contract you mentioned. I think we should expect more of this until the system is reformed and people like this do face justice within it.
“When peaceful disobedience doesn’t work the people don’t stop being disobedient, they stop being peaceful.”
Not really.
Look up the origin of the FBI. Hoover was a low level clerk when he was handed the reins. He didn’t have much of a budget but he did have the willingness to sit and do a lot of research.
When the time came to go after Emma Goldman the government had reams and reams of paper ‘proving’ how dangerous she was.
From now on, the CEOs will travel with security squads, and President Trump will authorize them to shoot to kill anyone who comes in fifty feet of the VIP.
This is more likely to be a one-off, like Gamestop.
It will take just a bit more pressure for people to also walk in squads. There’s plenty of guns to go around.
Let me guess. You’ve never actually been in a gunfight, or been in the ER after a gun fight.
Correct. That doesn’t stop me from being able to use my imagination to see what the material conditions some people face could make them do. I do it by putting myself in these shoes. Consider people who’ve lost loved ones because of one of these fellas. Some might feel they’ve nothing left to lose, entertain suicide, decide to take a bastard or two instead. As conditions get worse, the number of such people will grow. I don’t think people who care about ending up in the ER would be part of this.
I wish I could live in a world where there’s no such thing as ricochets and friendly fire deaths.
Try expanding your imagination to include things like that. Life isn’t a movie or a video game where every bullet only hits the intended victim.
Also, WW1 started because one brave shooter decided to stand up and be counted.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
All of this makes sense but none of it will change the mind of the person who shot the guy recently or the next one, or the number of such people the system creates. I’m merely pointing out that the system creates these people and they will kill others. The person who killed the CEO recently was already beyond the reasoning you’re suggesting. There’s no point considering these rational reasons when we have proof some folks don’t stop because of them. Instead I think it’s useful to look at what conditions got a person to disregard them. If we want to make a prediction we could observe how those conditions are likely to develop. I think that part is obvious. So I conclude the system will create more such people. If they get numerous enough, I speculate they might start organizing into groups too.
It will take just a bit more pressure for people to also walk in squads. There’s plenty of guns to go around.
Read some history. The Minute Men thought they could stop the British. It didn’t work. The Redcoats were stopped by a British style army and the entire French navy.
Also, you can’t talk about squads and lone gunmen at the same time
`
A bit of a tangent, but Gavrilo Princip wasn’t really the cause of WW1 (and WW2 which was on some level is an extension of WW1).
His actions were the spark and he has gone down in history for his assassination, but in an abstract, analytical sense his actions had nothing at all to do with the beginning of WW1.
I don’t agree.
Individuals and their actions matter.
Look at what this thread is about. We wouldn’t be talking if the shooter hadn’t acted.
The state of healthcare in the US is exactly the same as it was yesterday. But the discussion has changed dramatically
The tensions between the USSR and the West were as bad as the ones pre-WW1. Individual actions kept things from going into all out war.
How is their medical experience relevant?
Will you ever see Tesla Optimus aka Tesla Bot the same way again?
That’s obviously the end goal Musk is going for.
But I’m by no means the first person who realized the only thing the masses have going for us is sheer overwhelming numbers, and the day the wealthy have robot soldiers we’re fucked because by then they won’t need our labor either.
We go from being individually expendable to the entirety of us being expendable.
It’s gonna happen eventually, so we can’t just keep alternating between neoliberals and fascists, regardless of which one is in charge when it happens, we’re all still fucked when the wealthy and powerful don’t need us.
Poor people just need to cobble together EMP weapons if there are robot oppressors. Robots couldn’t be wirelessly controlled or have any wireless antennas without being EMP vulnerable.
If that becomes a problem, they’ll just control them with AI. Who cares if it’s a little inaccurate if it’s only killing poors?
It would still be hard to build an EMP proof chassis that completely surrounded it though. A Faraday cage needs a connection to ground wiring to work properly for example.
So we’ll be able to defeat them like the original Daleks. Separate them from the ground, and fry them
There’s a very high chance we’re gonna live in some interesting times.
That was a well written post, but DAMN am I sick of living in interesting times!
I want boring times please for awhile. BORING times.
I hope this is a start and that it will continue. They have left no other alternative
Dude. This event is like a page out of Batman. If you don’t think this is news, I can’t imagine what you think is.
That said, very few of those murders were
notpoint blank assassinations in public during the day. That’s sort of a bigger deal.Edit: Me not inglesh gud.
deleted by creator
Oops. I’m an idiot and I need more sleep.
People are interested in it (see Lemmy as an example), and news outlets publish stuff that gets clicks. What’s so hard to believe about that?
The media is treating it like a national tragedy, Walz was giving his condolences for some reason, and so are lots of other politicians.
It’s like when those billionaires all died in that submarine and the powerful people that run the media and politics treated it as some huge event and spent crazy money investigating.
They acted like it’s was 9/11, because to them $'s are what matters, so when one person with the same amount of $ as 100,000 people, they act like 100,000 average people die.
Do you not see that? The difference between how a wealthy person and a poor person are treated?
America used to have wealth worship, people still to some extent go to the Biltmore mansion to marvel at how nice robber barons lived centuries ago, or binge watch Downtown Abbey. But nowadays the vast amount of people upon hearing something bad happened to a billionaire, will at best say they dont give a fuck.
The contrast between what people are saying, and what they’re told by their leaders and the media isn’t jivving. And it’s obvious.
Look at history…
When societies are at the stage we are now, very very few bare any resemblance to that in just a decade or two. For better or worse, shit is likely to substantially change soon.
Edit:
To put it as simple as possible, the masses are told implicitly every day they don’t matter and only the wealthy do. Eventually people will start acting like their lives really don’t matter.
Which is bad for everyone, and has been happening for a while now. We’re just approaching the tipping point where “crashing out” is the majority opinion
This post really rings true. This is the small rumbling before the big quake.
The reason everyone is offering condolences and claiming this is bad is because the government is supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and that offers protection to the elite in society. Even on radical left lemmy, you can be banned for implying this is a good thing.
This person was at the top of a pyramid that lied to and deceived millions of people and made life absolute hell for people undergoing medical problems. He was responsible for that misery. He created hell on earth for those people. He was not that different than a mass-murderer, knowing full well what his policies would do, only his actions were legal.
His company delayed, denied, and defended, and the assailant had an answer to deny and an answer to defend but there was no delay, just a quick deposing of this guy. It was obviously symbolic.
It’s funny because the founding fathers of the US had enough of the bullshit from England and so they decided to rebel and used violence to create a New Republic… but their violence made them patriots and heroes. It’s just interesting… I haven’t seen 1 person call the assailant a hero yet. It’s not like the Founding Fathers of the US used rhetoric and voting to persuade England to stop its brutality.
I bet a lot of people are secretly thinking that assailant is a hero. (In accordance with lemmy’s policies, I am not saying he is a hero and instead am saying the assailant is very bad and violence is always bad.)
But we’re in such gilded-age end-times right now that the corporate media always parrot the idea that violence is always bad… (with the implied part being the government, backing the elite oligarchy, is the exception) and the populace has internalized that thinking out of fear.
We have democracy in this country and should vote in leaders that actually make legislation that is sensible, but it’s impossible because the bottom 40 percent of society are brain-washed by religious delusions that the elite thrust upon them in order to make them easier to control. The problems in society are caused by religion and it’s just impossible to make the stupidest bottom 40 percent of people stop believing in bullshit.
The elite have given people a choice: gun rights and policies for the rich… or no guns and policies for the poor. There is no middle class pro-gun party and it’s by design. We need to have liberals start embracing the NRA because any gun regulation seems toxic to middle America, and for good reason. To anyone who say the Democrats are not an anti-gun party, you’re lying and everyone can see through it. Any gun regulation is a slow decent to zero guns for regular people, and working class middle America knows it, which is part of why we keep ending up with these horrible leaders allowing health care in the US to descend into an abyss.
Any gun regulation is a slow decent to zero guns for regular people
It’s not. There is not chance of that happening in your lifetime.
The elite have given people a choice: gun rights and policies for the rich… or no guns and policies for the poor.
No they haven’t. There use to be lots of violent left-wing groups. Black Panthers, SLA, Japanese Red Army etc
We need to have liberals start embracing the NRA because any gun regulation seems toxic to middle America, and for good reason
Wrong. . The NRA is NOT protecting American’s right to buy a gun. The 2nd amendment does that. It would take 3/4 of the states to do end that right, and about 80% if the country would have to agree. There is no chance it would happen.
What the NRA IS doing is opposing sensible gun restrictions what would reduce mass murders
I haven’t seen 1 person call the assailant a hero
I’ve seen it in a few threads, and they’re right.
The media is treating it like a national tragedy
That’s my point. The media runs on clicks, and people are clicking.
Do you not see that? The difference between how a wealthy person and a poor person are treated?
How could I not see that? In your top comment you blame the media for this. We’re saying the same thing, but I’m just pointing out why the media acting like it is.
We’re on the same page, but sometimes it’s easier to be defensive and downvote. I hope you’ll see what I’m saying.
That’s my point. The media runs on clicks, and people are clicking
People aren’t reading the articles…
And media isnt run for profit anymore, billionaires all bought them up to control the narrative, I thought everyone was on the same page about this by now, it’s not 2015 anymore. It’s almost been a decade.
but I’m just pointing out why the media acting like it is.
No, you’re incorrectly assuming why they’re doing this but are 3-4 decades behind current motivations.
We’re on the same page
We’re not, but I’m trying to get us there.
Do I need to explain why this guy:
https://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/leadership-overview/cesar-conde-2
Wants people to think killing a corrupt CEO matters more than millions dying for corporate profits?
Oh ok
The media is treating it like a national tragedy,
LOL! This doesn’t surprise me. The media is totally clueless
Walz was giving his condolences
Ouch. Walz pushing crocodile tears for a guy like that, when Walz’s day gig is arguably representing the will and good of all Americans. Or I thought that was the league he was trying to play in. Thats a real drag, I thought maybe he had some character and some sort of inherent dignity, but maybe I was just seeing what I wanted to see.
Thats Disappointing, Walz, but I’m sure you’ll get some future campaign bribes out of it, which is what this is all about.
It is normal for politicians to offer condolences to a deceased person who was rich out of respect and not to tarnish his image.
Now, with regard to the death of the CEO of that company, it does not affect much because those who made that decision were more people. It is like when a high-ranking government official dies, it does not change much.
It is normal
I agree.
I’m saying it’s a problem.
But this isnt some random rich guy, it’s the head of the 9th largest corporation in the world that is predictably dirty. Do you understand how insane that is?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Criticism_and_controversies
This guy
iswas the problem.Edit:
Also top 60 in lobbying…
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/summary?id=D000000348
Bought off both sides and people still wondering why they’re winning.
“We do not know why” haha, take a wild guess, please!
It’s unclear because there’s a few different reasons somebody would want this man dead
No, it’s because they are immensely fearful of admitting the reason because they know a lot of other people would agree and it would potentially upset the status quo so much. And that would be bad for their masters.
Especially if it turned out to be contagious.
It’s because they literally don’t know who killed him yet. You don’t have to come up with a silly conspiracy theory when the obvious answer is that they don’t know who killed him yet and they don’t know why he was killed yet.
Someone who does bad things can be killed for other reasons. John Lennon was not assassinated for beating and otherwise abusing his wives and girlfriends. The guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer in prison did it because he thought, but wasn’t sure, that Dahmer poked him in the back.
You say that as though the media doesn’t throw in their opinion constantly without being sure.
Imo it’s better journalism to point out what everyone is thinking and point out it’s not confirmed yet.
The media absolutely does that. And they should not. But a bunch of pundits speculating is apparently something people enjoy watching and reading, so they do it anyway.
I’m not sure why you think just because the media does it, it’s a good thing.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, I’m saying it’s funny how they don’t do it now isn’t it?
I don’t really care. They suck ass. That doesn’t mean people here should be doing it.
No it’s because we don’t know what his motive was.
They probably don’t know which of the hundreds of thousands cases of killing and suffering were actually the cause.
The case raises questions about executive security
Thankfully it doesn’t raise any questions about the place of billionaire CEOs of companies making life and death decisions for the general populace for the sake of their overflowing pocket book. Boy would that be awkward.
The case raises questions about executive security
Weird. I don’t have any questions about that.
Just FYI - he was worth about $43 million. https://blackstarnews.com/brian-thompson-net-worth/
Just curious: do you know any life or death decision he personally made that wasn’t the result of hundreds of bean counters crafting policy over many years? I find it hard to believe the ceo rubber stamped any decision like that, or even that he was aware of the details of any individual case.
The CEO is ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. That’s literally their job. They set policy, direction and strategy, and if we’re to listen to what CEOs say they do,they also set the tone, attitude and energy of the company.
So unless the denials that resulted in death were done in opposition to corporate policy, the CEO is responsible for them.
Additionally, there was literally nothing stopping him from pushing a company policy of, as a thought, approving all claims involving minors, changing approval standards to only deny when the treatment was unequivocally unnecessary after a verbal consultation between the patients doctor and the insurance review doctor, and moving the balance of claim review to fraud investigation to recoup money after instead of denying upfront.
Decisions that led to his company having the worst denial rate nationwide and the decision to wholly adopt an AI system that is known to have a 90% error rate to achieve it. Overflowing profits and bonuses sank right in to his pockets for his business acumen, and the key thing you do to earn that CEO payday is sign off on everything and be culpable when the shit hits the fan.
that’s the thing about being the chief, the buck stops there.
You can’t put bullets in a “system”.
Yes the machine of human misery and death was already constructed before Mr Thompson got into the drivers seat. What’s you’re point? That he somehow didn’t know it was a death machine?
I finally understand what certain people mean when they talk about “good guys with guns”.
I sure hope nobody copies this behavior of retribution against the billionaire class which is responsible for almost all of the worlds suffering.
Thoughts and Prayering so hard right now.
A man can hope. Let’s pray.
I sure hope they do
I sure hope they do
What a bullshit take.
I can’t tell if you picked up on their sarcasm or not.
deleted by creator
I sure hope the internet isn’t a reasonable indicator of how the general public feel about CEOs and billionaires. There are in fact many fantastic CEOs and billionaires who donate and focus their time and money and corporations to benefit communities. There’s more than a reasonable argument that without billionaires, the planet would be suffering more.
This movement of hating on the mega wealthy is misguided. It’s not like billionaires are actually hoarding wealth - they don’t have billions stuffed under their bed. They own companies and stock in companies that are worth money. The money is used to create or buy other companies, to invest in other companies, to create new opportunities, to create jobs.
The Board of Directors are decreasing overhead and increasing profit margins to satisfy Wall Street’s hunger. This is due to changing government regulations, mostly lead by Republicans. The Republicans want limited government, the dismantling of federal programs, an increase in private corporations, and greater opportunities for the wealthy to generate income off Wall Street speculation.
This act should be condemned and the murderer should be sent to prison.
Murdering one person isn’t going to accomplish anything. Murdering all the CEOs isn’t going to accomplish anything. It may feel good to you that this person’s family has lost someone they love in retribution for all the families who have lost the people they love. But it’s not going to prevent anyone else from dying.
Hopefully, after the crowd chills out from seething at the teeth, we can get back to discussing how fucked our health care system is. Oh, sorry - we just elected someone who explicitly says he’s going to make health care worse and more expensive.
Maybe we should give a shit about our government and who we’re voting for.
Maybe we should be shooting each other instead of these CEOs who present more as a symptom of the illness.Edit: I’m going to take that back. It’s clear that people are just angry about anything and everything. It doesn’t matter how or why or its relevance. It’s not just the internet, clearly. This is how we ended up with another Trump administration. Irrationality and fear are all that matter. Science, facts, context, intelligence, education; all passé. We are the mob standing by with pitchforks.
I don’t believe there is a single billionaire who is a good person.
What gives them the rights to amass such obscene wealth off of the backs of their workforce just to choose what charitable causes they want to spend their ill gotten gains on.
Furthermore, I take issue with the whole stock market and its need for perpetual growth at any cost.
Then you should acknowledge that you are ignorant about who the billionaires are and what good they may be doing.
Most aren’t amassing wealth on the backs of a workforce. Most are making investments for the company they own to make money. As I said, they don’t have the money in their pockets. The company or the stock for the company is worth money.
Look at any sports team owning CEO. They’re not all great but many are decent people who contribute to their communities. And the people working for them are making decent money. The money the team they own makes is from fans spending money on tickets, buying merchandise, and selling broadcast rights.
Most are making investments for the company they own to make money
That’s exactly the same as
amassing wealth on the backs of a workforce
Where the fuck did the money that investment paid come from if not the workers at that investment not being paid their fair share?
You’re on .ml ffs, your bad takes are supposed to be the other way around
I know a billionaire who inherited a company from his relatives. By hiring the right people (well educated, very expensive upper management), he was able to increase production and distribution. He paid his entire staff very well. The value of the company increased as brand reputation increased. He invested personal money and time and worked his ass off to make a company he got for free worth even more. He then sold this company for a staggering profit. He took that money to buy another enterprise. Again, he took the skills he had and invested in hiring the right people who knew how to run a gigantic organization. This allowed him to hire more people whom he could pay even more money to return greater value.
Have you ever received a raise? Was it because your value increased or something else?
“by getting other people to do his work he was able to make a lot of money off the back of his daddy’s money”
Biggest brain in the industry here.
That’s not at all what I said or what I know of the situation. You are making assumptions based on your existing feelings without knowing anything of the matter. The person I know worked his ass off more than any person I’ve ever met.
In the industry I’ve worked in, I’ve had the opportunity to rub shoulders with celebrities, athletes, CEOs, etc. They have all been honest hard working people. Every one of them (over a hundred) had some philanthropic enterprises helping children, the sick, the homeless, animals, etc. Honestly, the wealthy people I’ve met in my life are the most incredible humans I’ve ever met. I guess that’s what upsets me. I wish you could all meet one or two of them and see how you come away feeling that these people are the best hope we have at a kinder world.
The billionaires are people who have billions of dollars. If they wanted to do good with their money, they’d be donating it at such a rate that they wouldn’t be billionaires. They never donate enough to threaten their place in the caste and they always make sure to claim it on their taxes.
Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime
Donating money is stupid. Investing your money in programs that help people is how most billionaires spread their wealth. If they gave it all away, they’d have no more to give. Instead, you invest the money in something that can continue to benefit people long after they’re gone.
Taxing billionaires until they’re no longer billionaires and investing that into schools, clean energy, and humanitarian aid is how you help people. Letting billionaires roleplay as humanitarians is how we got to where we are. Even if they have good intents, they’re too isolated from the real world to make proper judgments on where the money should go.
You’re right. Their obscene, disgusting levels of wealth and excess should be taxed the shit out by the societies they inhabit. It’s inefficient to just let them pick and choose their own fancies and unironically call themselves altruists.
They are not monarchs.
The problem is that they don’t actually have possession of the billions of dollars. The tax only happens when they sell the stock - as taxable income.
I think I read something recently where someone proposed taxing stocks people are holding. I don’t see that happening. At least not under income tax law.
Moreover, congress embraces the idea that billionaires create industry and jobs. In most cases, this is true. In a lot of cases though, these corporations get away with too much. This is because of a lack of government protections for workers and consumers.
How can possible think billionaires are better stewards of the power bestowed upon them by their immense wealth than a democratic society entrusted with that same power would be?
Like the guy who owns the flames N Murray Edwards who were trying to get the city to buy them a new stadium that they’ve finally got funded. I recall allegations that they were trying to use it to influence the municipal election/make it an election issue.
Not saying government shouldn’t pay for infrastructure, but the public paid for a large portion of the development, they’re not giving back shit unless it personally benefits them, financially, influence or just public image. That level of wealth is unfathomable and you do not get to that level without exploitation, there is absolutely no such thing as an ethical billionaire, that includes people benefiting from generational wealth.
You know what would be beneficial? If the wealth they’re hoarding went back into the system. Imagine if those billions just sitting there doing nothing but generating dividends actually were invested into making the world a better place. At the very least, money in the hands of the people who’s labour went into generating their (virtual) wealth.
It just seems like people keep repeating this line “there is absolutely no such thing as an ethical billionaire” without giving it any thought. Who said this and what facts do they have to back up this statement?
Companies are worth money. The value of that company increases for a thousand different reasons and what that company does with that money varies.
Some companies, like Walmart, Amazon, UHC, squeeze profit from every place they’re legally (or not) allowed to to benefit the bottom line and executive pockets. Some companies are full of hard working people doing incredible things. Some companies just get lucky and they sell a shit load of stuff. \
Some billionaires are celebrities or athletes who’ve taken an already large sum of money and invested it for a small return. Some billionaires started with a few million, made some wise financial decisions, maybe bought real estate at the right place and time, and turned it into billions. Once you have a large amount of money, it’s not hard to make it bigger.
I mean, it seems like the argument against billionaires is that no company should ever see an increase in value; that no person should ever be worth more tomorrow than they were yesterday.
Not every company makes money doing the same thing. Not every CEO is a billionaire. Not every billionaire is evil.
You can throw out every example you want about the actions of particular companies but I’d argue there are just as many, if not more, doing things somewhat decently. Just because a company is worth billions doesn’t mean it’s bad; just as a company making a few hundred thousand isn’t necessarily good.
You’re all laser focused on certain people and certain industries. Just step outside the box and get some perspective.
Also… why are we talking about billionaires when this guy was only worth $43 million?
You cannot have that much wealth and operate in an ethical way, it’s not possible. Just like you cannot have non-consensual sex with somebody in an ethical way, there is no scenario where that is possible.
Just because a system allows you to do something doesn’t make it morally acceptable to do it. Right now, it’s trivial to scam people out of tens of thousands of dollars using meme crypto-currency. But just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable.
That’s the classic, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” incorrect, you can hate both the player, and the game, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Capitalism is a fundamentally evil system. It allows and creates incentives for people to make effectively unlimited amounts of money by exploiting others. Billionaires are the ultimate example of what happens when Capitalism is allowed to run rampant for centuries. No one person should be able to amass that amount of wealth and power, it’s wrong, and it indicates deep societal problems.
An ethical way to operate a company would be some kind of employee-owned structure, where everybody who works for the company has equal say in how it operates. They get to decide if they want a CEO, who it is, and what they get paid. They get to decide collectively what the company does with the profits. They might decide to equally distribute it to all employees. They might decide to reinvest some percentage in better workflows, better equipment, or nicer facilities. The point is it would actually be democratic.
Also, I know this guy wasn’t a Billionaire. There are other ways to be a bad person than being a billionaire.
You cannot have that much wealth and operate in an ethical way, it’s not possible. Just like you cannot have non-consensual sex with somebody in an ethical way, there is no scenario where that is possible.
You are starting your argument off with two entirely different concepts. Employees are paid for their work because they are employees. Non-consensual sex is the explicit lack of agreement to be in the situation.
Please, tell me WHY it is unethical to employ people? How is it exploitive to run a business? At what point does a company make so much money that it’s unethical for them to continue doing business?
I’m on board with a coop and democratically run operations. When in history has any company ever succeeded as such? To my knowledge, these are locally run organizations with no ability to scale up. So, how do we end up with big nation and world changing projects? Is it your belief that we shouldn’t have large scale projects? We shouldn’t have corporations like Google or Caterpillar or Visa? Is it your belief that we
shouldmust destroy everything we know and go back to village life? Are these real things that you think have to happen or is this in an idealistic world? How do you take what we have now and make it into your image?
Health isurance companies are literal death panels. Every CEO, board member, director or executive have blood on their hands. They should be living in fear.
Cool. You think murdering people is the right way to do that or maybe better government regulation?
The rich should consider history. They’re the ones putting a target on their backs.
Classic case of treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause. Somebody else is just going to take the CEO position. You celebrating their deaths isn’t going to change a damn thing
In America? What does “treating the symptoms” look like? We couldn’t get any real change under Biden and now we’re headed into a dictatorship. We’re past the point of doing anything about the climate change that the rich brought us, so anything we do isn’t going to change a damn thing.
Also, statistically speaking, changing the CEO of UnitedHealthcare could bring their denial rates down. It’s the industry leader. Anyone else could be a positive change.
And maybe the next one will be a little more worried about how many people without anything to lose his actions are creating. If not, then keep going until one does.
When have we ever had government regulation
No, but in the total absence of government regulation its the only option available. It’s not good, but at least it exists.
The US just voted in fascism. There will be far, far less government regulation (of corporations and the rich).
Big time. I’m literally stocking up on things I might need to get me through the next four years.
I keep seeing “next four years,” and I think people are being wildly optimistic.
Even if we still have elections again, when has a democrat ever relinquished power that a republican gained?
You demonstrate no faith in the system you extol.
I’m not reading all that because there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. Oh I’m sure they’re plenty nice to your face, but you can’t earn a billion dollars. You can only steal it.
We’re not arguing whether or not you can earn a billion dollars. If that’s your argument, being a billionaire has nothing to do with it. You’re just pissed at people making maximum money for minimum effort and you think that’s unethical. That’s call an uninformed opinion.
I just don’t waste my time being angry at others for things that have nothing to do with me. I see how my life and the world around me has been benefitted from those with more money than me and I’m grateful. There’s a good argument for it but with the alternative being Communism, I just don’t see humans accepting a lifestyle of stagnation.
I’m fucking enraged that we live in a system that lets dragons horde mountains of gold while their nextdoor neighbors starve to death or are buried in medical debt that is mathematically impossible to get out of. And idiots like you are over here going, “but guys, Smaug is nice to meeeeee”. You being OK with any of it means you’re 100% oblivious to the context that this conversation happens in.
Communism
Oh no! ANYTHING but THAT! Could you imagine living in a world where people don’t die because they can’t afford insulin? I shudder just thinking about it. Thank God those disgusting poors die like they’re supposed to, that’s the American Way™
You actually believe insulin would exist in a communist society? And hospitals?
People taking on medical debt or dying due to poor health care has nothing to do with billionaires. It does have to do with capitalism. It has to do with a government who rejects social safety programs in favor of wall street run corporations. This has been the republican agenda for decades and people keep voting for it.
It has to do with a government who rejects social safety programs in favor of wall street run corporations.
I really am not sure how to break this to you.
What would you call a government who embraces social safety programs against the interests of wall street run corporations?
That would be one that no one alive today will ever see in the United States.
You actually believe insulin would exist in a communist society? And hospitals?
Quick question, which country has the most doctors per capita in the world?
I didn’t ask bout doctors - I said hospitals. The answer to that would be Guinea Bissau. I’ll concede this point to you even though the top answers are largely skewed due to the physical size of these locations (Sweden is the most reasonable answer outside tiny Cuba and Monaco).
Help me figure this out. In the region I’ve lived my whole life, older hospitals that were initially established by churches have been left to crumble or have been bought out by other corporate run healthcare facilities. So, without these new hospitals, in your mind, what would the future of health care have been in this region?
I hope you just forgot the /s because wowzers is this one fuck of a take…
“Many fantastic CEOs and billionaires”
You’re either extraordinarily naive or lying.
Actually, someone with first hand experience. Where have you acquired your knowledge of the matter?
First hand experience of what? Hanging around billionaires?
Yes. In their homes and places of employment. Listening to them on the phone instructing staff. Watching them in staff meetings. Watching them direct charitable organizations to ensure the integrity of the organization is maintained regardless of all else.
Charitable organizations are basically PR for billionaires. You’re just foolish enough not to realize that.
That’s what your buddies want you to believe top maintain the class war. I would encourage you to step outside, join charitable organization, work your way up and speak with the people who run it and fund the operation. Then come back and tell me they’re bad evil people just in it for the PR. You’d be shocked how many people of wealth came from nothing or have family suffering with an illness. I’m not opposed to the class war but it should be founded on the right reasons. That being lack of government oversight.
I’d love it if we could vote better people into government, but the billionaires have been putting their fingers on the scale. If anyone is responsible for the resentment aimed at them, it’s them.
I agree. What pains me the most is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Why is fake news so obvious to some people while others suck it up? I can’t tell you how many people I spoke with in the past year who were wholly clueless to so much about the election and what Trump or Harris were saying. The propaganda, coming from billionaires or foreign actors, is too easy for people to believe.
One part lack of education, one part lead poisoning, one part telling them what they want to hear.
The billionaires aren’t the problem?
I do get your point. It’s bad to take joy in the pain of other people. That it is bad as a society that we celebrate the deaths of our fellows. I don’t really want vigilante justice to become our norm–that’s how gangs and cartels come to prominence. I’d much rather have institutions that do their damn jobs so the common person doesn’t believe justice can only be found at the end of a gun. The billionaires keep voting/promoting to break those institutions though!
I love Bernie. The point he and I are making is that government is failing the people.
I love Bernie too! We have that in common.
But you’re take is only part of the point he’s making though. The government is failing people in large part because such a small segment of the population has enormous sway over who gets to be in government.
I had a much longer response that got deleted when the app force closed on me 😮💨
I really did want to weigh in from your original post, though, how you argue that billionaires make jobs, make products, make the world better. Like, sure, some do, but the ones at the top? Big corporations? No, they don’t. Literally, Walmart workers have relied on government assistance programs due to poor pay for decades. Companies like Toys R Us get bought up by billionaires and liquidated for more money as employees lose their jobs. Or billionaires buy things that shouldn’t be profit driven–where is that return on investment going to come from? These are billionaires choices, not Congress or City Council or whatever, that directly shape society negatively. Sure, governments allow it–especially governments that billionaires have bought.
I used to be against limits to billionaires (I still kind of am, I’d prefer minimum/maximum earning ratios), but actually watching them work and change in the world, I have seen that they have too much power with too few checks. I mean, hell, from a global warming perspective, it’s hard to find what I, as a little person, do matters at all. I could die tomorrow and produce no more carbon emissions (beyond my body’s offgassing), and it wouldn’t change anything. Meanwhile, some small percentage of people, just like in Bernie’s tweet, contribute much more each day than I will in my whole life. Fuck, man.
Well, I saw it more as the government is failing by allowing them all this unreasonable influence in the first place.
I’m familiar with these arguments. My general issue is that people get really invested in supporting arguments that seem reasonable on the surface without really having much knowledge of the full situation. Headlines are visceral. The nitty gritty of the story is often much more nuanced. Of course there are worse case examples and they make the headlines. Then something else seems similar and people assume they’re all the same kind of story.
I just don’t blame the billionaires. I don’t blame the corporations. I blame the governments and indirectly the voters. Neither the corporations nor congress are going to go out of their way to reduce harm.
America has been brainwashed since the Reagan administration that capitalism is king. I’m cautiously optimistic that this is coming to an end but I don’t see anything prepped to take its place. Americans are consuming more than ever before. We’ll see what happens in the next administration when no one can afford anything.
The people have to be broken free of the brainwashing before they start speaking out and getting congress to change regulations. I don’t think killing a CEO is going to do any good.
I dont blame the corporations. I blame the government.
I understand that corporations do what they do to further their prime directive (profit maximizing, as I figure), but blaming the government for not sufficiently innoculating itself against them is kinda wild to me. Yes, Citizens United is an abomination, but even if it weren’t the current meta, corporations would still do their utmost to influence the levers of power to their own ends.
How does boot taste? I wouldn’t know, I’m eating the new meat option…
hur dur hur dur
I hope your favorite billionaire is next.
Genuinely the funniest comment I’ve read tonight
That’s a disgusting thing to say.
You know what I find disgusting? Defending people who by their very nature and existence bleed people dry for every dollar they can. At least I hope your guy gets it quick. You hope I bleed my whole life however. Cruel is what you are.
I’m not defending anyone. I’m saying that it’s disgusting to wish death upon someone else. I’m calling you out for being a horrible human for thinking such a thing.
Tell me how “by their very nature and existence” a “billionaire” bleeds people dry for every dollar they can. Just a general thought would be fine.
Then tell me how this applies to the person this entire topic is related to - the guy who was worth less than $50 million.
I know billionaires who have built hospitals, created organizations to help child cancer patients, donated millions to public schools, created organizations to get homes for the homeless; just to mention a few things.
If you want to roll with “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, you have to look at what we would lose if they were gone and how we would replace them. Should we tax the wealthy enough so government is run more efficiently? What agency in what level of government is going to organize the creation of the things we’ve lost? Does our government have the will or knowhow to create such programs? How are you going to tax “billionaires” who don’t have billions of dollars of liquidity?
I hate to use the guy as an example but look at Musk. Do we need electric cars, reusable space rockets, residential batteries, satellite internet? Could someone else have done it? How long would it have taken NASA to get where SpaceX has? How do you start a car company if you don’t have the collateral to back it up? Heck, even Trump built his empire on the lie that he was a billionaire (not that casinos are worthy of this conversation).
Elon musk didn’t build a reusable rocket. The people he underpays and overworks did. Case closed. Thanks for proving the point.
How much are they being underpaid and overworked?
Every billionaire is a policy failure.
People continue to be mystified by money’s status as a commodity. It is only worth something if not everyone who needs it has it. The existence of the rich creates the poor. To be paid for your time is to be stolen from.
Sounds like you’re making e/acc-like (effective altruism) arguments. Which basically is to make as much money as possible to use that money for positive change. It’s very flawed, because 1) to make as much money as possible, you need to exploit workers, customers, or investors, and 2) it’s authoritarian in nature. The wealthy are extremely out of touch with reality, and their priorities and ideal of what “positive change” is generally don’t align with the populace, or what’s needed most.
I don’t think murdering CEOs is the answer, but I do hope the working class becomes more class conscious; the wealthy class sure is, and has never stopped waging class war.
Did I say make as much money as possible?
A business should make as much money as needed to cover overhead and make enough profit to meet their business plan. The better that company is at achieving that goal, the more valuable that company is.
I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.
The wealthy people I know are all very involved with helping the poor and sick. They’re genuinely good people from what I personally know of them. Are they doing what the people need most? I don’t know. I know my own city has often invested in programs that weren’t really helping those it intended to help. From what I learned this past year, it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.
This is what we should be having more conversations about. How is it that we have this powerful tool to speak our minds yet so many people are being ignored? Or voting against their own interests.I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.
That’s because you don’t understand the basic economic principles under which businesses operate. You think value is created out of thin air and is not a product of human labor.
I know my own city has often invested in programs that weren’t really helping those it intended to help. From what I learned this past year, it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.
It’s almost like governments do not operate in the democratic interests of the civilian populations they govern…. So strange. I wonder why that could be?
Value of a brand is created from consumer perspective. Value of a company is created by balancing operational expenses. There is nothing explicit in either of these that is exploitive and to suggest so is a broadly uninformed claim.
If human labor is involved in a company, why are you all so stuck on the concept that people are not being paid for their work? How is it that simply by being an employer, you are exploiting staff? I mean, I admit I’m totally being exploited at my current job but I’ve had other jobs where I was paid extremely well and given great opportunities. Are you talking about specific industries? Specific corporations? Is the guy selling kabobs down the street from me exploiting his staff?
You guys are either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourselves. Or you really have no idea what you’re talking about and just regurgitating what you’ve heard other people say.
Again, it seems like you have a really vague notion of what value actually is which is what makes you incapable of understanding the concept of labor exploitation. You need to understand the difference between marginal theories of value, which is defined by a circular logic where price determines value and value determines price, and labor theories of value, where people interact with the material world to modify it in some way that gives it added utility.
How is it that simply by being an employer, you are exploiting staff?
It’s not that simple. You can be an employer and not exploit the people that work for you. However, doing that means you will not have a profitable business. Profits come from exploitation. Please understand that when I use the word exploitation I’m not making an inherently moral argument about whether exploitation is good or bad. Exploitation is simply a material phenomena. I believe it only becomes a moral issue when undue suffering occurs as a result of said exploitation.
Is the guy selling kabobs down the street from me exploiting his staff?
He might be. Small business are often some of the most exploitive workplaces because of how unprofitable they can be. It’s not uncommon for a small business to be forced into situations where they really have no choice but to exploit their staff if they want to continue operating. This is why so many restaurants in the US rely on undocumented immigrants who they can pay less than the minimum wage. It’s a flaw in the way our economy works.
I mean, I admit I’m totally being exploited at my current job but I’ve had other jobs where I was paid extremely well and given great opportunities.
This happens to a lot of people in industries where profitability declines. When profits are high, workers in those industries often get paid that they can afford their basic needs. However, as profits wane investors look to bolster them by taking more from their employees. What’s happening in the tech sector is a prime example of such a phenomenon. Unfortunately, this is a tendency that’s baked into the our economy. It prevents long term sustainable from being achieved in industries that are key to our economy but where the opportunities for new markets or innovations are lacking.
You guys are either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourselves. Or you really have no idea what you’re talking about and just regurgitating what you’ve heard other people say.
Have you thought that maybe you’re the one who’s more confident that you really should be? I get that a lot of what I’ve said may contradict vague notions about how the economy works that you may have absorbed simply because you exist within a world steeped in corporate propaganda. However, your beliefs are not ones that any worthwhile economist would take seriously.
I’ve known and know business people as well (not extremely wealthy; most have probably < $10M net worth). I don’t think I’ve ever met one that wasn’t trying to make the most money possible (for the businesses they had equity in, and for themselves). They certainly think of themselves as good people, and are interpersonally decent people, but the ideologies they adopt allow them to justify anti-social actions. They brag about being able to secure low-wage labor (third-world workers, unpaid internships, etc), and employing anti-consumer and predatory practices in their products. Anytime they do good, they either have ulterior motives, or it’s just nepotism. Every social interaction they have seems to have a transactional sub-text.
I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.
Profit is literally the surplus value of the worker’s labor. The workers generate it, and the business appropriates it in whatever way the business owners see fit. This is exploitative, anti-democratic, and damaging to society, imo. Eventually, the owners may take a big payout by selling the company (whose value was generated by the workers), and possibly throw some crumbs to the workers, who may get laid off soon after.
it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.
Many of the problems with government is it’s beholden to the wealthy, imo. In regards to the U.S., I think the next administration will preside over an almost complete capture of government by oligarchs. I think we will become like Russia or East Asian oligarchies. I’m an anarcho-leaning leftist, so I don’t think large powerful governments are the answer either.
This is what we should be having more conversations about. How is it that we have this powerful tool to speak our minds yet so many people are being ignored? Or voting against their own interests.
Most media is controlled by the wealthy/corporations, who either purposely use it to advance their own interests (divide the working class, selective reporting, purposely biased algos, and spinning narratives), or are just damaging as a side-effect of pursuing profits. Honestly, at this point in time, I think most of it is purposeful, and not a side-effect. In “new media” the far-right seems to have an awful lot of money, to the point they’re doing theatrical releases of movies. It’s already came out that some far-right “new media” was directly funded by Russia (an oligarchal nation with ties to the wanna-be oligarchs of the upcoming administration).
Interesting. The people I now brag about hiring the best people. Bringing them in from top universities around the world and bragging about how well they pay them. Perhaps the people I know are the exception because they are setting the bar for being known as well paying organizations. They’re explicitly paying well to entice people out of other competing organizations.
Profit is literally the surplus value of the worker’s labor.
No it’s not. Profit is dictated by the business. Any business sets the price of their good or service in order to cover overhead and expand the business. If you’re sitting at home writing code all day as Ian independent contractor, how are you going to set your hourly wage? Are you going to just calculate what it costs to pay for electric and buy lunch for the eight hours you’re working? I would hope not. You’re going to calculate your expenses and multiple that to reach a figure that pays for the rest of your life plus money for expanding your operations. Are you exploring yourself in order to purchase health insurance or save up for a new computer?
I’m sorry but I’m tired explaining basic business concepts to people. This shouldn’t be hard. I understand people like Walmart workers and coalminers are treated like shit but this concept that every human who works for a living is being exploited is just trash. You need a better argument.
how are you going to set your hourly wage?
As much as the market will bear, which is what my work is worth according to market principles. What’s just needed to expand operations or whatever only plays the role of setting a minimum price. You seem to keep arguing that people and businesses only charge what’s needed and no more; and very few people or businesses do that (those working for passion, like academic scientists and non-profits).
Einstein may explain it better than me:
The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
The French invented something to un-elect Fascists in a democratic manner
If a billionaire was a good person, they wouldn’t be billionaires any longer.
.ml username
corpo bootlicker
Huh?
You don’t become ultra-wealthy without carelessly exploiting workers. We shouldn’t need to rely on their benevolence. The fact some of the ultra-wealthy give away some of their wealth but remain ultra-wealthy is in itself an indictment of the system you’re defending. It shouldn’t be a choice. They shouldn’t be able to gather that much wealth and it should instead be used to benefit other people without their concent.
A violent revolution may not be the answer, but certain things need to happen for the upper class and our government to recognize, in their own way since they can’t seem to relate to the general public, that the people they represent and hold power over are not happy. Yes we vote in our officials, but due to the way the system has changed over the years, gerrymandering and gentrification has made minorities feel wildly unrepresented. Progressives feel wildly unrepresented because they honestly just want the best for everyone in the country while conservatives typically want to maintain the old ways (usually involving sexism or racism). Democrats have done nothing to appeal to the progressives. Republicans have broadened their appeal wildly to even feel desired by those that they truthfully aim to negatively impact. This has been through extreme lies and misinformation spread. Everyone has been talking about “nobody wants to work anymore,” but nobody has been talking about “nobody wants to vote anymore.” It’s disgraceful that we call ourselves a democracy but around 50% of the entire voting populace feels they shouldn’t vote because their vote doesn’t matter, or are put into a position where they can’t vote because of the state they live in.
I will never advocate for violence. I was not alive during the civil rights movements or the women’s abolition movements, or the worker’s rights movements. I know a lot of people had to die for the people that govern us to pass legislation to improve those conditions. Why do the average everyday Americans have to die in large numbers for legislation to be passed… even locally? I think a few people that have power over us or that govern us being killed is far better than more everyday Americans that lead the labor force. I don’t want random, good CEOs to die. And I think the general public will agree. It’s not like the CEO of Costco was being targeted.
has made minorities feel wildly unrepresented
I dunno, I think it’s the white rural working class who’ve spoke loudest over the past few years. I’m not one of them but I think it’s important to reflect on the fact.
I agree with everything you’re saying but I would add that we’ve chosen to take an isolationist attitude towards our neighbors who seem threatening or unrelatable to us. Added, the pandemic induced reliance on screens to do everything, we’re just growing further and further away from each other. The media, the ones promoting this initial story, are the ones most responsible for dividing us. They do it for ratings, for stock growth, for promotions and payouts. They do not do it to educate the public. They are not the fourth pillar of democracy.
The unbreakable walls of division are closings off to bothering to really understand anything. So many people are quick to read a headline and make an unfounded argument for or against it. Does anyone care about this man’s family whom I’m sure loved him? Does anyone care that he wasn’t even a $100 millionaire, never mind a billionaire? No one is telling the good stories about good billionaires. Those who build hospitals, contribute to fighting childhood cancer, who support public schools and build homes for the homeless. Even when given opposing facts about a topic, all people are set in their opinions. It’s a defense mechanism because people are terrified to be kind to one another. Because the media has told us this is what we are now.
No one is telling the good stories about good billionaires.
Omg this right here is so funny. You must be blind. Media outlets talk non stop about how amazing, smart, caring, and hardworking billionaires supposedly are.
Those who build hospitals, contribute to fighting childhood cancer, who support public schools and build homes for the homeless.
Oh right so do the billionaires actually pour the concrete? Do they administer the chemo to the kids with cancer? Do they put together assignments for students? Do they hammer the nails to frame the house they’re supposedly building? Because as I see it if all they’re doing is signing check then they really haven’t done anything for anyone. It’s just our fucked up society means all the people that actually do good in the world need the sign of from a billionaire. If you don’t have their approval but you still want to work for the benefit of all, tough luck. Rent is still due at the end of the month.
I was not aware media outlets were talking about how amazing and hardworking billionaires are. No. Do you have some examples?
No. They establish companies (employee people) to build, manage, and maintain these organizations as they dictate. They’re actively involved in the principles of the organization and maintain a seat on the board of directors to ensure upper management is fulfilling their vision. A lot of their work is with lawyers to make sure everything is done legally and to push legislation through city council to keep the project on time. Sometimes a project will involve contributions to the city like parks or public spaces so they work with architects to design those projects too. That’s a very small part of what I’m aware of what they do.
They are giving away hundreds of millions of dollars for the future benefit of lives well beyond their own time. They’re doing more by establishing these long-term enterprises than they ever could by simply giving out money. Because that’s what makes sense in the reality we live in.
Are you saying that wealthy people should not use their money to build hospitals or help dying kids?
I was not aware media outlets were talking about how amazing and hardworking billionaires are. No. Do you have some examples?
Oh come on. If you really are in the room with billionaires at charitable events you know the press is often invited to write puff pieces about how generous they are.
Are you saying that wealthy people should not use their money to build hospitals or help dying kids?
I’m saying we shouldn’t let people undemocratically decide whether or not working class people build hospitals and treat dying kids. By advocating that billionaires hold that power you are literally siding against democracy. But hey I guess all those super yachts just need to be built. For the good of society right?
. Does anyone care about this man’s family whom I’m sure loved him?
The care claims AI system decided that care about the family of a mass murder did not meet policy requirements.
He should have been more proactive at maintaining his health, and as such, the family’s claim for anyone to care has been denied.
Your argument is for one not being enough, in case you didn’t realise.
oh my god could you be smoking pole any harder
This is surprising coming from an ml user, but otherwise i support your stance
I’m probably not on the right server. I just picked it cause it was short.
average lemmy.ml take. the billionaires aren’t gonna let you hit, go back to your algebra homework
This is quite ironic because a typical ml user’s take would be joyous over this news
the point is that’s it’s a take with absolutely no coherency or thought behind it
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive.
Friggin Sherlock Holmes’ over here.
The case raises questions about executive security
“We won’t be pressured into changing the system we’ll just protect the rich exploiters better”
Despite a fairly obvious motive in general before this news broke, and now confirmation it was because of their policies, they are doing zero soul searching or reexamination of why their policies became a motive
Thompson’s killing quickly sent shockwaves through the corporate world, with corporate security heads gathering in a conference call to Wednesday.
“Many of my colleagues today are sitting down with their executive protection team leaders, their security leadership teams, and re-evaluating what they are doing and not doing,” Dave Komendat, president of Seattle-based Komendat Risk Management Services
Who had neo-Pinkertons on their 2020s bingo?
https://delaydenydefend.com/ It’s a book reference.
Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims And What You Can Do About It
Nope, still a complete mystery. Why it could have been any motive at all. A mugging gone wrong, perhaps? The gun accidentally went off while the guy was cleaning it while he walked around?
WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES DON’T PAY CLAIMS AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT
That subtitle kinda hits different these days…
The thing about United Healthcare is that it has always been the very worst one of of our terrible for profit health insurance companies.
One bullet said “depose,” not “delay.”
It may not be a direct reference to the book, but I would just about bet that the author didn’t come up with the bon mot from scratch.
“Depose” in particular is interesting. It could certainly be a broader social comment about a perceived ruling class, but it also has a specific meaning in the context of civil litigation. I would imagine that some glib corporate attorneys have used those exact three words in sequence, in connection with UHC and others: Deny the claim, defend the lawsuit, depose the patients, where “depose” means conduct a lengthy and expensive and stressful set of questions, done outside the courtroom and with very little off limits because it’s expected the judge will rule on admissibility later. All of it wears out the claimant, who clearly needed the coverage and will almost by definition lack the same resources to pursue the lawsuit.
deleted by creator
If it’s in the book, then point happily conceded. If not, I reckon it could work either way. Everybody hates depositions.
Artistic flourish by the assassin. He did the “depose” without “delay”.
I’m choosing to see it that way too. Dude substituted “delay” for “get this motherfucker outta here forever”
Because he was deposed without further delay.
To those upset that this is headline news because he’s rich, remember that exposure breeds copycats.
It would be a shame if the rich got eaten. I do not support eating the rich
If you’re going to, use some sweet baby rays.
Or maybe a sauce that’s not owned by a decent sized corporation pulling in 10s of millions a year…?
Shop local, get it from a farmer’s market
A better choice for ya:
Homemades the way to go for sure but idgaf what BBQ sauce someone decides to use. I didn’t say use fucking kc masterpiece.
I didn’t say you did. I was specifically commenting on the sweet baby Ray’s.
If you’re going to eat the rich, don’t give more money to the rich when you season them…
¾ cup yellow mustard
½ cup honey
¼ brown sugar
½ cup apple cider vinegar
1 tablespoon of ketchup
1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce
1 teaspoon garlic powder, or ½ tsp fresh finely minced garlic
¼ teaspoon cayenne pepper powder
½ teaspoon salt
For extra spice ½ teaspoon or more of your favorite hot sauce.
Combine in a saucepan, and whisk together till smooth
Heat to a simmer, and low simmer for 10 minutes, stirring constantly
Store in the fridge overnight.
Surely you’d make an exception if the mass-market seasoning used on a CEO was sold by that CEO’s own company!
I don’t want food poisoning
Oh no, how terrible.
Its simple all you clueless colombos. Just start investigating all denied claims where the person died at a result. Shouldn’t take more than a decade or so to go though that list.
Shootings must be rare in NYC given how much attention this one is getting.
Um ackshually, NYC is doing better than many other places, at least as far as per-capita homicide statistics go, according to this list I pulled out of Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Sort by “murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” and you find NYC way down on the list. St. Louis, Baltimore, and Detroit is on the top. NYC is not even the worst in the state anymore, Buffalo is worse.
There aren’t often assassinations in NYC, unless you’re talking mob hits through the years.
What even is an assassination? It is entirely likely that this is based in a personal grievance. The guy did wrong by a lot of people. Might even have been a tyrannicide.
An assassination is when the victim is wealthy enough for the police to care.
And tyrannicide is always a good thing!
An assassination is a targeted murder, no matter the cause. It’s not getting in a fight with someone, or trying to rob someone. You mean to kill that exact person.
Thoughts and deductibles to his family.
Sorry, thoughts are not in network with your health care plan.
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive.
Aye, that sure is a mystery for the ages. Maybe he cut somebody up in traffic?
Didn’t return the shopping cart
Probably cyberbullied him back in the day.
There’s a gulf of difference between jumping to an obvious conclusion and actually doing the investigative work to really answer the question. The police aren’t dumb and are probably just as sure as the rest of us as to the motive that will be found. However, they still need to make that determination based on real evidence, especially if it’s going to go to court. So, “it’s unclear” until they have something which provides strong evidence of a motive.
Ya, I’d be putting all my chips on this being someone who was on the receiving end of a denied claim. But, you never know when it’s going to end up being the guy failing to pay up to the Russian Mafia or some other situation which resulted in a targeted attack. I’m not going to defend all the actions of the police, but they do occasionally stop shooting kids long enough investigate crimes properly.
The police aren’t dumb
What? Since when?
what’s the phrase -I’ve never wished death upon a person but I’ve read some obituaries with great satisfaction?
That obituary might make a nice t-shirt.
