Zubecap

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Video made with Grok Imagine

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@BillAckman That doesn't make sense. You're bullish on it but you still sell? Was Google overpriced before Gemini? Or after 😂🤔

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@APompliano Yup!! And the printing of the money devalues the money, reduces purchasing power which increases the cost of living for the poor. Everyone now has to work even more to buy the same stuff. But they printed that extra money to help them in the first place which is ironic. 😂

[Anthony Pompliano 🌪 @APompliano]

Asset prices will not stop going up because the government will not stop printing money.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@MarcoFoster_ @KyleKulinski Can anyone do the math? If you divided all the billionaires wealth in the U.S and gave it out to the poor they'd still be poor! (Zimbabwe) Because it's not about the amount of dollars but the value that one dollar buys. Taxing the rich will not change your cost of living.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@MarcoFoster_ @KyleKulinski It's not about the amount of dollars it's the value of 1 dollar. Everyone is literally working to get paid in a currency that keeps devaluing. You're not poor because of billionaires. You're poor because you get paid in currency that buys you less stuff every month.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@plies I agree. It's for the risk takers and the ones who think they can!!

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@BigWave372 😂 guys, there is literally not enough actual liquidity to do this. Billionaire wealth is mainly inflated by debt and speculation. You can't tax it because it doesn't really exist! Go ahead and try.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@HolySmokas Long story short: if the stuff that makes stuff gets more expensive then everything gets more expensive. AKA. Your cost of living will rise and you will not get Paid more. It's funny how no one looks at the major indexes the same way. 🤔

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@BaBiBoi_ @BetMGM Glad it's not just me.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@SenSanders I'm very curious to see how you think you're going to get this "wealth". The market valuation of these companies are all inflated by the debt created by the treasury and margin leverage by lenders. It's all DEBT, you'll never get it because it's not real! 😆

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@SenSanders Side note: Billionaires don't make their money from tax breaks. It comes from the multi-trillion dollar budget and all the debt that the Treasury has to create to continue to fund the government. Tax breaks are nice but it's not the reason they keep getting richer.

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@saylor How are you paying for this? Who's giving you money or credit to buy this? Lord help us. And why are they doing this. 😂

[Moy Miz @moymiz]

@NYCMayor This is you!

[Zubecap @zubecap]

@NYCMayor Taxing the rich to pay for NYC's government and its programs is not new. NYC will not see change it will continue to see the same shit as the last 20 years. Which is inflation, rising cost of living and getting paid in a currency that's literally losing value.

[Mark Hendy @markhendy]

This is the economic equivalent of saying "architects don't build houses, bricklayers do." It's technically true in the most pedantic sense while being completely wrong about how the economy actually functions.

1. The Category Error: Confusing Proximate Cause with Structural Cause

Harry Eccles' Logic:
Workers physically perform tasks (building, designing, teaching, selling)
Therefore workers create jobs
Billionaires just "capitalise profits"
Therefore billionaires don't create jobs

Why This Is Idiotic:
Yes, workers perform labor. But who organized them? Who decided:

What to build?
Where to build it?
How much to pay for it?
How to finance it?
How to distribute it?
Who to sell it to?

Example: James Dyson
Harry's version:"Engineers designed the vacuum. Factory workers built it. Shop assistants sold it. Dyson just capitalised profits."
Reality:
Dyson spent 15 years and 5,127 prototypes developing bagless vacuum technology

Personally invested his own capital when no investor would back him
Took enormous personal financial risk (mortgaged his house)
Built manufacturing facility, hired engineers, created distribution network
Created 12,000+ jobs globally that didn't exist before
Without Dyson:

Those 12,000 people would not have "still built things"

They'd have built... what exactly? For whom? Funded by what?
The specific vacuum cleaner technology wouldn't exist
Those specific jobs wouldn't exist
Someone else might have eventually innovated, but that's hypothetical
The Dyson counterfactual: If Dyson had never existed, those 12,000 jobs objectively would not exist. The engineers and factory workers would be doing something else, somewhere else, possibly for less money, possibly unemployed.

To claim Dyson "didn't create those jobs" is linguistic sophistry detached from economic reality.
2. "Without billionaires, we would still build things..."
The Catastrophic Logical Flaw:
This assumes economic activity is spontaneous - that workers just naturally organize themselves into productive enterprises without capital, entrepreneurship, or risk-taking.
Let's Test This Claim Empirically:
Countries that tried to eliminate billionaires/capitalists:
USSR (1917-1991):
Abolished private capital, eliminated billionaires

"Workers would still build things!" - Yes, they built things
What they built: Shoddy consumer goods, chronic shortages, technological stagnation
Result: Collapsed after 70 years, per capita GDP ~1/3 of Western Europe
Lesson: Turns out capital allocation and entrepreneurship matter
Venezuela (2000s-present):

Chavez/Maduro attacked "oligarchs," nationalized industries

"Workers would still produce oil!" - Yes, they produced oil
Result: Production collapsed 75%, hyperinflation, mass starvation
Turns out: Running PDVSA requires expertise, capital investment, management - not just "workers drilling"
North Korea (1950s-present):

Eliminated capitalists entirely

"Workers would still farm, build, teach!" - Yes, they do
Result: Periodic famines, GDP per capita ~$1,800 (South Korea: ~$35,000)
Lesson: Same people, same land, different system = 20x difference in prosperity
East vs. West Germany (1949-1990):

Same people, same culture, split in half

West: Capitalist, allowed billionaires (e.g., BMW, Siemens founders)
East: Socialist, no billionaires
Result: West Germany 3x richer, people literally dying to escape East
Lesson: System with capital allocation and entrepreneurship vastly outperforms
Harry's Response: "But those are extreme examples!"

Exactly. They're the empirical test of your hypothesis. Remove capitalists/billionaires systematically, and productivity collapses. Every. Single. Time.

3. "Billionaires capitalise profits. That's it."
This Is Like Saying:
"Quarterbacks just throw the ball. That's it." (Ignores reading defenses, play-calling, leadership)

"Conductors just wave a stick. That's it." (Ignores interpretation, coordination, timing)
"CEOs just make decisions. That's it." (Ignores which decisions, based on what information, with what consequences)
What "Capitalising Profits" Actually Entails:

Let's use Jeff Bezos as example (since Harry presumably thinks Amazon "would still exist"):
1994-2000: Risk & Vision
Bezos quits high-paying job, invests own savings

Identifies internet retail opportunity before it's obvious
Secures venture capital (risking investors' money)
Builds infrastructure at massive losses for years
Amazon loses money until 2001 (7 years of losses)
Most people would have quit - Bezos persisted
2000-2010: Reinvestment

Profits from books → reinvested in infrastructure (warehouses, logistics)

Built AWS (cloud computing) - now larger than retail
Created Kindle/digital ecosystem
Every dollar of profit reinvested rather than taken out
2010-2020: Scale & Innovation

Continued massive reinvestment

Created Amazon Prime (logistics network)
Built Alexa/Echo (AI/voice)
Revolutionized cloud infrastructure (AWS powers Netflix, Airbnb, thousands of others)
Harry's version: "Bezos just capitalised profits."

Reality: Bezos:
Took personal financial risk when outcome uncertain

Allocated capital to long-term infrastructure vs. short-term profits
Made thousands of strategic decisions (what to sell, how to price, where to expand)
Delayed gratification (lived in tiny apartment, drove Honda while building Amazon)
Created 1.5 million jobs that objectively didn't exist before
Without Bezos:

Online retail would exist (eventually)

But Amazon's specific innovations? AWS? Kindle? Prime? All hypothetical
The 1.5 million Amazon jobs? Wouldn't exist
The small businesses selling on Amazon Marketplace? Wouldn't have that platform
4. The "Jobs Would Still Exist Somewhere" Fallacy

Harry's Implicit Claim:
If billionaires didn't create Amazon/Tesla/Microsoft/etc., workers would still have equivalent jobs doing equivalent things.

Why This Is Wrong:
A. Jobs Are Not Fungible
Amazon warehouse worker (UK): £11-13/hour + benefits + career progression
Alternative if Amazon didn't exist:
Retail assistant: £10-11/hour, fewer hours, less secure
Warehouse worker (smaller company): £9-11/hour, worse conditions

Unemployed: £0/hour + benefits
The jobs are not equivalent. Amazon's scale, efficiency, and capital investment enable higher wages and better conditions than fragmented alternatives.
B. Innovation Creates New Categories

If capital allocation were easy:
Every venture capitalist would be a billionaire (most aren't)
Every public company would succeed (most don't)

Every government investment would work (they spectacularly don't)

Examples of "Just Capitalising Profits" Going Wrong:
1. General Electric (1892-2018):
Founded by Thomas Edison

Dominant for 126 years
2018: Collapsed, removed from Dow Jones

Why? Bad capital allocation decisions (bought NBC, financial services at peak, etc.)
Lesson: Even legendary companies fail when capital allocation fails
2. Sears (1893-2018):
America's largest retailer for decades
Had more capital than Amazon in 1990s

Chose not to invest in e-commerce

Result: Bankruptcy
Lesson: Capital without correct allocation is worthless
3. Kodak (1888-2012):
Invented digital camera in 1975
Had technology and capital

Chose not to cannibalize film business

Result: Bankruptcy while smartphones ate camera market
Lesson: Wrong capital allocation = death
The Point: These companies had capital, workers, expertise, distribution. They "capitalised profits" for decades.
Then they made bad capital allocation decisions and died.
If "capitalising profits" is "just" that, why did they fail?

6. "Workers Create Value, Not Billionaires"
The Labor Theory of Value Resurrection
Harry is unknowingly regurgitating Marx's labor theory of value (debunked ~100 years ago, but zombies never die).
Marx's Claim: Labor creates all value; capital just extracts it.

Why It's Wrong:
A. Labor Without Capital Is Nearly Worthless
Experiment: Put 1,000 workers in field with no tools.
Output: They can dig with hands, gather berries. Subsistence living. Value created: Minimal.
Now: Give them tractors, irrigation, fertilizer, seeds, logistics, market access.
Output: Industrial farming. Feed millions. Value created: Massive.
What changed? Not the workers. The capital.

B. Identical Labor, Vastly Different Value
Software engineer at Google: £150k salary
Software engineer at failing startup: £40k salary
Same labor, same skills, different value

Why? Google has:
Proprietary technology (search algorithms)
Distribution (billions of users)

Infrastructure (data centers)

Brand (advertisers pay premium)
Capital (can invest in long-term projects)
The failing startup has none of these. Same engineer, 1/4 the value.
Labor alone didn't determine value. The platform (created by founders, funded by capital) did.
C. Coordination Is Value Creation

10,000 workers building random things = chaos
10,000 workers building coordinated product = iPhone
Who coordinates? Management, funded by capital, directed by entrepreneur.
Harry's world: Workers spontaneously organize into optimal production. No entrepreneurs needed.
Reality: Coordination is incredibly difficult and valuable. That's why management exists.
7. The Empirical Test: What Happens When Workers "Own the Means of Production"?
Harry's Implicit Solution: Worker cooperatives would be just as productive.
Reality:
Worker Cooperatives:
Exist in every capitalist country
Represent <1% of employment
If they were superior, they'd dominate

Why Don't They?
1. Capital Formation Difficulty:
Workers have limited capital to invest

Can't raise venture capital (no equity to sell)
Can't scale quickly

2. Decision-Making Inefficiency:
Consensus is slow
Workers vote for short-term interests (wages) over long-term investment

"Tragedy of the commons" - everyone wants benefits, nobody wants to sacrifice

3. Risk Aversion:
Workers can't diversify (their labor and capital in one basket)
Prefer stable wages over risky ventures

Avoid innovations that might cost jobs short-term

Examples:
John Lewis Partnership (UK):
Employee-owned

Successful BUT:Founded by capitalist (John Spedan Lewis), then transitioned
Competes in retail (low innovation, low risk)
Growing slower than competitors
Still requires management hierarchy (not pure democracy)

Mondragon (Spain):

Large worker cooperative
Successful BUT:Operates in traditional manufacturing (low innovation)
Has subsidiary capitalist firms (!)
Growing slower than capitalist competitors in same sectors

Lesson: Worker cooperatives can work in specific contexts but systematically underperform in innovation, scaling, and risk-taking.
If Harry's model were superior, cooperative businesses would dominate. They don't. After 200 years of trying.
8. "We Would Still Build Things" - Doing What the USSR Did
Harry's Vision (whether he realizes it or not):

Without billionaires allocating capital, someone else must. Who?

Option 1: Worker Collectives
We just covered why these underperform

Option 2: Government Central Planning
USSR tried this
Built things: Yes

Built right things: No
Built efficiently: No
Innovated: Rarely
Result: Collapse
Why Central Planning Fails:
The Calculation Problem (Mises/Hayek):

Modern economy has:

Billions of products

Trillions of prices
Constantly changing preferences
Constantly changing technologies
Capitalist system: Prices signal supply/demand, entrepreneurs respond, capital flows to success
Central planning: Bureaucrats guess what to produce, often wrong, no correction mechanism
Example: Soviet Nail Factory

Planners set quota: "Produce 1 ton of nails"
Factory produces one 1-ton nail (meets quota, useless product)
Planners revise: "Produce 10,000 nails"

Factory produces 10,000 tiny unusable nails (meets quota, useless product)
Without price signals and profit motive, you get perverse outcomes.
Option 3: Status Quo (Billionaires Allocate Capital)
Imperfect but works

Innovation happens
Living standards rise
Jobs created

Harry's refusing to engage with this choice. He wants "workers build things" without explaining who decides what to build, how to fund it, how to allocate risk.
9. The Specific Mechanisms By Which Billionaires Create Jobs
Let's Be Concrete:
Elon Musk & SpaceX:

2002: Musk sells PayPal stake for $180m
Harry's world: That $180m sits in bank, or gets spent on consumption

Actual world: Musk invests ~$100m in SpaceX
2002-2008:
SpaceX fails 3 launches (rockets explode)
Musk nearly bankrupt

Most people would quit
4th launch succeeds (2008)
2008-2025:
Revolutionizes rocket economics (reusable rockets)
Breaks Boeing/Lockheed monopoly (launch costs ↓80%)
Creates 13,000 direct jobs at SpaceX
Creates thousands more at suppliers
Enables new satellite industry (cheaper launches)

NASA saves billions (uses SpaceX vs. traditional contractors)
Without Musk:
Would someone else have done it? Probably not - everyone else said reusable rockets impossible
Would those 13,000 jobs exist? No - they're specifically at SpaceX

Would launch costs have dropped? No - incumbents had no incentive

Harry's claim: "Billionaires don't create jobs."
Reality: Musk literally created 13,000 jobs that objectively didn't exist before his capital allocation decision.
But Harry will say: "The engineers built the rockets!"
Yes, and:
Who hired them?
Who paid them during 3 failed launches?

Who risked their own capital?

Who made technical decisions?
Who persisted when "experts" said it was impossible?
Answer: Musk.

10. The "Profits vs. Wages" False Dichotomy
Harry's Implicit Model:
Billionaires take profits
Workers get wages

These are in opposition (zero-sum)
Therefore billionaires profit at workers' expense
Why This Is Wrong:
A. Most Billionaire Wealth Is Unrealized Equity
Bezos' wealth: ~$200bn

Not: $200bn in bank account taken from workers
Actually: Amazon shares he owns (he founded the company)
If he sold: Share price would crater, wealth would evaporate

His wealth represents: Market's valuation of Amazon's future profits
What if he "gave it to workers"?
He'd have to sell shares
Share price collapses (supply/demand)

Amazon's borrowing costs rise (lower stock = less collateral)
Amazon invests less in growth
Fewer jobs created long-term
One-time payment to workers (~$130k each), then nothing
This is not a sustainable transfer. It's asset liquidation.
B. Profit Is The Signal For Resource Allocation
Scenario 1: Company makes profit
Signal: "This is valuable, do more of it"

Result: Company expands, hires more workers
Scenario 2: Company makes loss
Signal: "This isn't working, stop doing it"
Result: Company shrinks or dies, workers laid off
Profit isn't theft from workers. It's information about whether resources are being used well.
C. Wages vs. Profits Aren't Zero-Sum

Example: Amazon 1994 vs. 2024
1994:
Revenue: $0.5m

Employees: ~10
Bezos' wealth: ~$10m (mostly invested in Amazon)

2024:

Revenue: $575bn
Employees: 1.5 million

Bezos' wealth: ~$200bn
Did Bezos get rich by suppressing wages?
No:
Average Amazon wage: £11-13/hour UK (above minimum wage)

Total wages paid: ~$60bn annually
Bezos' wealth grew because company grew massively
Pie got bigger, everyone got more

If wages and profits were zero-sum:

Bezos richer = workers poorer
Actually: Bezos richer AND 1.5m workers employed (vs. 10 in 1994)
Both can grow simultaneously. That's how economic growth works.

11. The Ultimate Hypocrisy: Harry Posted This On X (Twitter)
Twitter/X Didn't Spontaneously Emerge From Workers

2006: Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, Evan Williams (founders/billionaires) created Twitter
Harry's logic: "Billionaires didn't create Twitter. Engineers coded it. That's it."
Reality:
Founders had vision for microblogging platform

Raised venture capital ($57m early funding)

Hired engineers
Made product decisions

Grew to 5,800 employees
Created platform Harry now uses to complain about billionaires
Without those specific billionaire founders:
Twitter might not exist
Harry would be posting on... Facebook? (Also founded by billionaire)
Or Reddit? (Venture capital funded, founders now rich)

Or Instagram? (Founders sold to Facebook for $1bn, now billionaires)
Every platform Harry could use to complain about billionaires was created by... billionaires.
The irony is almost too perfect.
12. The Linguistic Sleight-of-Hand
Harry's Trick: Redefine "create jobs" narrowly to exclude what billionaires do.
"Create jobs" means:

Workers physically perform tasks ✓

"Create jobs" does NOT mean:
Identify opportunity
Raise capital
Organize production

Bear risk
Make strategic decisions
Persist through failures
This is sophistry. It's like saying:
"Composers don't create music. Musicians playing instruments create music. Composers just write notes on paper."

Technically true in most pedantic sense. Completely wrong about causation.

Without Beethoven: The Ninth Symphony doesn't exist. You can't credit "musicians" for creating something they wouldn't have played if it didn't exist.

Without Bezos: Amazon doesn't exist. You can't credit "workers" for jobs that wouldn't exist if company didn't exist.

Conclusion: A Lazy Slogan For People Who Don't Think
Harry Eccles' claim is superficially appealing:
Villains (billionaires)

The accurate statement:
"Billionaires create jobs by:

Identifying opportunities
Organizing production
Raising/allocating capital

Bearing enormous risk

Making thousands of strategic decisions
Persisting through failures
Workers execute the work. Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient alone. Claiming one doesn't matter is economically illiterate."

But that's 280+ characters, so Harry went with the stupid version.

[Russell Wilson @DangeRussWilson]

Go Hawks! 🏆🏆

[Zubecap @zubecap]

#12