The Sylvan billionaires’ dreams debate considered the following motion:
This house believes that billionaires’ pursuit of their dreams is a net positive for society.
The debate took place on Monday, 2nd August. Ina Negoita proposed the motion and Rodrigo Aguilera opposed it.
The proposition supporting the view that billionaires are a net positive for society
The proposer framed the debate around the childhood dreams of the world’s wealthiest billionaires. The debate does not centre on the fairness of whether there should be billionaires, taxation levels, etc. Tools exist to address that, but it would be a separate motion. She argued that many of the billionaires came from relatively humble backgrounds and demonstrated tremendous drive. She then asked the house to imagine a world without the firms these (mostly) men created. Without the convenience of Amazon. Without the connections everyone has through Facebook. No Google – how would it be? They changed the world and many of them such as Warren Buffet will give away the bulk of their fortunes to charity. They’ve made the world a better place.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer expounded on the different eras of ultra-wealthy individuals through time, comparing the Gilded Age to today. Yet in the post-war era, there were few billionaires and they had far smaller wealth relative to today’s. Yes Jeff Bezos has flown to the edge of space and Elon Musk seeks to go to Mars, but everyone is poorer due to what they have done. More billionaires means that everyday people have worse lives. Higher taxes in the post-war period led to lower concentrations of wealth, yet economies still grew strongly. Billionaires hoard wealth rather than create it, and by doing so reduce competition, harming consumers. Many of the billionaires referenced by the proposer grew up in privileged families. Competition creates wealth and growth, and reduces billionaires. The fewer billionaires the better, regardless of space exploration!
Floor speeches from the audience of the billionaires’ dreams debate
Floor speakers raised a wide range of points. Survivorship bias means that billionaires simply represent the people that got away with their dreams the most. The debate should be about the benefits of those successful dreams, not about fairness. The support billionaires received, either from government, technology or associates means they didn’t create these companies singlehandedly. The capitalist system leads to ever growing wealth, and this drives the climate emergency, yet we also need tech solutions. Billionaires have a psychology that tries to draw us in, yet many are downright crooked. Sometimes luck determines successful business outcomes. If these companies had not succeeded, others would have risen in their place. A small number of speakers wholeheartedly supported the capitalist animal spirits represented by the billionaires.
The opposer’s rebuttal in the billionaires’ dreams debate
In rebuttal, the opposer railed against the system which allows such wealth to accumulate. It accumulates via monopoly and / or exploitation. We must reward success, but no one should have $100 billion when we have social problems such as skyrocketing debt, poor healthcare, over-expensive housing. Buffet still controls his wealth via board seats at his foundations. Bezos spent $5 billion to reach the edge of space, when the wealthiest billionaires from the 1970s couldn’t even have afforded it!
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer drew the debate away from the ideological argument about whether we should allow billionaires. The idea that firms creating new innovations should regulate themselves so their founders make less money is nonsensical. We all have a vote – put in better regulators! But you can’t regulate the future and we shouldn’t stop progress. Donations do mean the billionaires give their money away. Everyone who has a pension owns part of these companies and to bash them is hypocrisy! Facebook makes staying in touch free by harvesting users’ data – yet it is a voluntary service, no one has to sign up. We can now afford useful technology due to Apple and Microsoft.
Result: in the final vote, the billionaires’ dreams debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the billionaires’ dreams debate that the actions of wealthy individuals are a net positive for society.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.