i dont stan anyone

The morality distinction at one billion is kinda ridiculous. If you stan a pop star worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you have no moral high ground. Many pop girls attain their wealth through business ventures too like clothes, makeup, or perfume. If you must ethics Olympics it, I'd rather stan someone whose billion dollar wealth is primarily theoretical and derived from the value of a possession that's illiquid like master recordings and not someone who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars for selling makeup.

ATRL cares more about the stan wars and gotchas than the principles though so exploitative mega corporations are fine as long as it's their fave and the net worth doesn't manage to get to a B.

9 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

The morality distinction at one billion is kinda ridiculous. If you stan a pop star worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you have no moral high ground. Many pop girls attain their wealth through business ventures too like clothes, makeup, or perfume. If you must ethics Olympics it, I'd rather stan someone whose billion dollar wealth is primarily theoretical and derived from the value of a possession that's illiquid like master recordings and not someone who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars for selling makeup.

ATRL cares more about the stan wars and gotchas than the principles though so exploitative mega corporations are fine as long as it's their fave and the net worth doesn't manage to get to a B.

What's the ethical distinction you're making? Most billionaires' wealth is largely in liquid. If you're debating ethics, what matters is how someone acquires, uses and exercises that wealth,not whether it's tied up in master recordings, stock, or a cosmetics company.

If selling makeup is supposed to be morally worse, how is that different from selling dozens of vinyl variants, CDs, and other merchandise that also consume resources and generate plastic waste? Both are commercial products sold for profit.

Edited July 14Jul 14 by Patient Zero

48 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

The morality distinction at one billion is kinda ridiculous. If you stan a pop star worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you have no moral high ground.

There's a huge difference between someone worth $100M and $1B. The former being closer in wealth to someone in the poverty line than someone like Bezos or Taylor. That's how big of a gap a billion dollars is, but I digress.

OT: No but I don't "stan" anybody either.

i don't stan anybody but i do love rih, bey and taylor's music, i also love bruce springsteen and paul mccartney. however i like these people for their talent and art, i would never admire someone for their unethical accumulation of wealth though and nobody is above criticism to me, i criticize these people all the time when they deserve it

Edited July 14Jul 14 by Deactivatedos

7 minutes ago, bad guy said:

There's a huge difference between someone worth $100M and $1B. The former being closer in wealth to someone in the poverty line than someone like Bezos or Taylor. That's how big of a gap a billion dollars is, but I digress.

OT: No but I don't "stan" anybody either.

This is an INCREDIBLY absurd framing.

While it might be true in the most literal sense (you could also claim that someone worth 499 million is closer to homelessness than 1 billion dollars), it isn't true in any meaningful sense. One hundred million dollars puts you in the top .01% of wealth in the USA. It's more like .001% worldwide.

Most of the people we are discussing are also quite young. If the B is really that important to you, a pop star worth 100 million at 30 will be worth 1 billion by 70 assuming an incredibly modest 6% annual return. For high net worth individuals who invest aggressively, the return is much higher. That's also assuming they stop warning money aside from investments.

If your actual concern is wealth hoarding and exploration, the centimillionaire class holds FAR more global wealth than the billionaire class and they do all the same things.

Edited July 14Jul 14 by DevilsRollTheDice

Yes, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, and Beyoncé. But not because they're billionaires

3 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

This is an INCREDIBLY absurd framing.

While it might be true in the most literal sense (you could also claim that someone worth 499 million is closer to homelessness than 1 billion dollars), it isn't true in any meaningful sense. One hundred million dollars puts you in the top .01% of wealth in the USA. It's more like .001% worldwide.

Most of the people we are discussing are also quite young. If the B is really that important to you, a pop star worth 100 million at 30 will be worth 1 billion by 70 assuming an incredibly modest 6% annual return. For high net worth individuals who invest aggressively, the return is much higher. That's also assuming the drop warning money aside from investments.

It's not absurd to point out that being a billionaire is in fact much less tangible than earning millions of dollars. I mean, even if you make 100k a year you're in the top 1% globally as well. That's the issue though that someone as young as Taylor can amass that much wealth so quickly. Madonna at 70 still isn't a billionaire despite probably making much more take-home money with her actual music/tours than Taylor given how the industry has changed in terms of profit. So something is clearly wrong with the system here.

But again it's hard to dissect the finances of billionaires when most everything is tangled up in a revolving door of investments rather than liquid cash of a billions of dollars. I guess you can argue making money from music is more "ethical" but her emphasis on physical media production and using herself as the corporation essentially is definitely bordering on exploitative and that's being modest

Some people think Madonna may have already crossed the billionaire benchmark years ago but her net worth is widely cited to be around $850 million. I love her but I am under no false pretense that that isn't still an obscene amount of money for any one person. When the revolution comes I know what must be done. I do think her consistent activism over the years has earned her a place in the back of the line to the guillotine. In her own words--"It was just greed and it won't protect me."

Edited July 14Jul 14 by valleyofthedolls

I don't think any of my faves would ever be considering JYP & hype take most of there cut

but Rihanna yes