6 ms·
By definition the "wealthy" have always controlled the "vast share of assets and capital" in the world. How could it be anything but? The reality is that the
by cubano 9y ago
By definition the "wealthy" have always controlled the "vast share of assets and capital" in the world.
How could it be anything but?
The reality is that the "poor" in developed countries live better then 99.9999% of all humans have ever lived on this planet.
You disagree? Well consider this then...just very-short-90-years-ago, the 16 year-old son of the most powerful man on Earth died from a blister on his foot he got while playing tennis on the White House lawn.
We should all stop looking at the glass being half-empty.
- vkou 9y agoBe careful where you point that analogy. In that case, if we take away 99% of what the wealthy own, they'll still be better off then 99.99999% of all humans that have ever lived on the planet. Sounds like great grounds to grab some torches and pitchforks. They don't even really need all that money.
- FussyZeus 9y ago> They don't even really need all that money. This. It's not even about that they have it better, it's that they have it so ludicrously, needlessly better. They're just running up the score at this point. What was Bezo's last milestone? 90 billion? What the fuck do you even do with 90 billion dollars?
- ameister14 9y agoWhy does that matter, on its face?
- rainbowmverse 9y agoYou notice how no one complains about Elon Musk pouring his billions into solar, electric cars, and rockets, or about the Gates family trying to solve disease in developing nations? No one really cares if someone has billions of dollars if that money is doing some good. The problem comes when they're just hoarding it while people around them suffer from problems that are solvable with a little investment. That money didn't just appear in their bank account. They made it on top of a society and economy that enabled that wealth. No one is an island, even if they're rich enough to buy one.
- ameister14 9y agoSure, so you believe that people have a duty to put money to use, and not using money is the issue, because people earn money in an environment where other people enable them to? I don't really agree with that. If the money went bad, sure; that'd be depriving people of resources uselessly. But a big part of the reason we have currency in the first place is because it's a store of value and doesn't degrade quickly. The justification based on the idea that they didn't create their wealth in a vacuum is an odd one to me. If I buy an axe that someone else made, use a road someone else paved and then chop down and dismantle a tree to sell the wood- do I owe others? The person making the axe was paid for it in a mutually acceptable exchange. The person paving the road was also paid to do so, and didn't likely do it with the idea that payment would come in part from the commerce others would use the road to partake in. If you steal wealth from others or borrow it, sure - they have a say on what happens with it. If you become wealthy by providing goods or services that others pay for and then hoarding the money you receive, I don't think you owe your community more because of it. I believe it's in your best interest to pay more taxes because a larger percentage of tax goes to protecting your property, but as long as you pay your tax I don't think you owe it to anyone to solve their problems for them. It's a good thing to do, but not an obligation.
- kamaal 9y ago>>What the fuck do you even do with 90 billion dollars? Why should you care? Its not like they take your money and give it to him. He earned it all himself. And besides why do you think you should get to have a say in how much he should be allowed to keep?
- ameister14 9y agoSure, they would still be better off. How did that improvement happen, though, and how do we continue improving? Going the route of Venezuela doesn't seem the best idea to me.