All see here is really bad math. If he’s worth 400mil and she buys him for that, he’d be worth 800 and she’d be left with 700. Thus he’d be able to buy her and still have 100 million! Circle is closed.
This ignores legal realities about property and transferring wealth. When she buys him for 400mil, she will briefly place the money in escrow, reducing them to 700 and 400mil. Then, when he becomes her property, Taylor also gains his assets, reaching 1.5 billion when the escrow is released.
Wait. Is this something really profound you stumbled upon? So you say they started with 1.5bil combined, but after first purchase her assets go up to 1.5bil and his assets go to .8bil, so their combined assets would be 1.5+.8=2.3billion. Extra 800 million without producing a thing! I think you’ve just found infinite money glitch.
And to whom then Taylor Swift pays said 400million? They just disappear? Or do you assume Kanye is already owned by someone and the money goes to his actual owner, not Kanye himself?
Slavery is still legal in the US now, they just need to be convicted of a crime first. Easy enough to find crimes to put people away for, and you can even selectively enforce laws against the people/race you don’t like
I’m sure she could put some of that $700M towards buying a private prison and then bribing the cops, the D.A., and the judge to get him sentenced there.
Wait, so if Kanye gets convinced of a crime, T-swift could buy the private prison where he’s serving his sentence and then effectively own Kanye? Is a billion dollars enough to buy a prison? They can’t be that expensive, right?
Good thing the force behind enforcing laws and charging people as criminals is famously good-natured and held to the highest of accountability standards to prevent any possible corruption!
People don’t like Rick Scott but he spent enough of his money to get elected. And Bloomberg is 50 fold wealthier. And Bloomberg seems much more personable. So I don’t know.
They are divorced, and there was a dispute over several months (or years) to resolve the divorce with several rumors about cheating and other controversies. Not saying that it indicates an physically abusive relationship, but the relationship wasn’t great either.
Didn’t heard any story from his ex-spouse but man’s a classic example of narcissist, allegedly have toxic working environment in Yeezy, and also spewing hate speech left and right. Maybe not to the point of Chris Brown but doing it mentally also count as abusive.
I mean he’s always been like this, it’s just getting worse.
Before Donda passed, he already had the infamous “George Bush hates black people” thing and already ran up on stage at the EMAs to say he deserved the award, not the winners. I’m sure there’s plenty more documented exmaples , and in those days, the spotlight wasn’t on him 24/7.
And house slaves thought they and their families would have a better life by supporting the power structure that enslaved them to begin with. That doesn’t belie just how fucked up it is that some shitty Taylor Swift fan account is insinuating that a white billionaire could literally purchase a black man.
Most of that money comes from sales of her art, not from the exploitation of surplus labor, so it’s marginally better from a moral standpoint. Though she would still pay more taxes if it was up to me.
A majority of her art up until recently was not created by her, but rather many professional songwriters. So even the whole, “not from the exploitation of surplus labor” doesn’t hold water. She’s just like the rest. Hoarding that wealth, when it could be used for the betterment of many lives, is criminal, in my opinion.
Sure, there is certainly some labor exploitation here, but at the end of the day musicians like her make money because they can do the thing once and sell it an infinite number of times, so that scaling is messy. Most of the professionals involved in actually producing this art do get royalties. So most of the labor exploitation would be on the distribution side - people running the servers and driving the trucks which deliver CDs and whatnot, but where does that line get drawn?
Do we say that Taylor Swift is also exploiting the labor of the people who make headphones which are required to listen to her music? It’s definitely possible to make a worker owned electronics collective, but Taylor Swift likely doesn’t have much power to drive consumer preferences towards or away from such a hypothetical resolution, right? Maybe she is actually morally obligated to stand up her own collective and vertically integrate her art with it? If she did that would it actually absolve her from any labor exploitation derived from people choosing to consume her art through other means? Or does the mere act of creating art which might interact with capitalism in any way create some form of moral liability?
Add comment