3 ms·

You began by comparing Bill Gates to us as consumers, but ended comparing him to an institution, of which he is. His personal wealth is managed by a private inv

You began by comparing Bill Gates to us as consumers, but ended comparing him to an institution, of which he is. His personal wealth is managed by a private investment company, and his impacts on the economy are matched only by others of equal diversified wealth, world governments, and other powerful institutions. Bill Gates being one man with the power of governments and institutions is the inequality we are all talking about.

airstrike 8y ago
Did you create the same value to society as Bill Gates? So why do you think you deserve the same wealth?
- bmer 8y ago
  Because they are a human being.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    And every human being is entitled to the same amount of wealth? Good luck with that battle.
    - gshubert17 8y ago
      Perhaps every human being is entitled to equal dignity. A certain level of wealth (dependent on the size of population and level of development) might be necessary to maintain one's dignity. Within families we do not keep tallies of who owes what to whom. My parents did not present me on my 18th birthday with an itemized bill of what I had cost them. Nor did I do that to my children. Economics should be a servant of society, not vice versa. Unfair distributions of dignity, income, wealth, and power seem easier to accomplish within large entities (corporations, governments) compared to families or tribes. Division of labor and specialization make it easier to justify unequal and unfair treatment. What changes do we make to our values and ways of organizing ourselves, to have more just outcomes?
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        > Within families we do not keep tallies of who owes what to whom. My family absolutely has lent money to each other at various times, at various interest rates, with the full expectation of those loans being repaid. I suspect this is not unique to us.
- marnett 8y ago
  My comment was specifically pointing out that measuring inequality should not be based on how much one could potentially consume, but (obviously) the extreme power they derive from their wealth. GP did a good job at explaining how wealth can result in extreme domestic and international power (by using their wealth to impact/drive economic initiatives, etc). So to tie it all together - if we believe in the American democratic project we are running, I deserve the same amount of domestic political power as any other civilian, not necessarily the same wealth. However, if wealth acts as a power multiplier (as we just discussed), than, naturally, wealth inequality results in democratic inequality and needs to be acknowledged in order for democracy to work. Unrelated to my point, but in response to your question: Wealth (especially the wealth Bill Gates has acquired) comes from creating value for shareholders, not society. Do not conflate those two things.
- afgioionio 8y ago
  I doubt you'll find many people on this website who think Bill Gates's tenure at Microsoft was good for the world. He was a ruthless monopolist who lied, cheated, and stole his way to the top.

airstrike 8y ago

Did you create the same value to society as Bill Gates? So why do you think you deserve the same wealth?

bmer 8y ago
Because they are a human being.
- airstrike 8y ago
  And every human being is entitled to the same amount of wealth? Good luck with that battle.
  - gshubert17 8y ago
    Perhaps every human being is entitled to equal dignity. A certain level of wealth (dependent on the size of population and level of development) might be necessary to maintain one's dignity. Within families we do not keep tallies of who owes what to whom. My parents did not present me on my 18th birthday with an itemized bill of what I had cost them. Nor did I do that to my children. Economics should be a servant of society, not vice versa. Unfair distributions of dignity, income, wealth, and power seem easier to accomplish within large entities (corporations, governments) compared to families or tribes. Division of labor and specialization make it easier to justify unequal and unfair treatment. What changes do we make to our values and ways of organizing ourselves, to have more just outcomes?
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      > Within families we do not keep tallies of who owes what to whom. My family absolutely has lent money to each other at various times, at various interest rates, with the full expectation of those loans being repaid. I suspect this is not unique to us.
marnett 8y ago
My comment was specifically pointing out that measuring inequality should not be based on how much one could potentially consume, but (obviously) the extreme power they derive from their wealth. GP did a good job at explaining how wealth can result in extreme domestic and international power (by using their wealth to impact/drive economic initiatives, etc). So to tie it all together - if we believe in the American democratic project we are running, I deserve the same amount of domestic political power as any other civilian, not necessarily the same wealth. However, if wealth acts as a power multiplier (as we just discussed), than, naturally, wealth inequality results in democratic inequality and needs to be acknowledged in order for democracy to work. Unrelated to my point, but in response to your question: Wealth (especially the wealth Bill Gates has acquired) comes from creating value for shareholders, not society. Do not conflate those two things.
afgioionio 8y ago
I doubt you'll find many people on this website who think Bill Gates's tenure at Microsoft was good for the world. He was a ruthless monopolist who lied, cheated, and stole his way to the top.