3 ms·
No it wouldn’t. Why would I prefer you controlling that company versus someone who grew it to its present size?
by babesh 6y ago
No it wouldn’t. Why would I prefer you controlling that company versus someone who grew it to its present size?
- cryptica 6y agoWith lower net worths, billionaires would have less political power and wouldn't be able to influence politicians to create terrible laws and regulations like we have today which allow these billionaires to accumulate even more wealth and power and exclude competition. That's the problem which most voters care about now. Nobody actually cares about what happens to the CEOs of these megacorps. Personally I don't care if they all get thrown in jail.
- babesh 6y agoYou are biased. Not all billionaires exclude competition. Being a CEO doesn’t mean that you should be thrown in jail. You also assume that the average person or group of average persons controlling a company would be better. There isn’t any reason to assume that. History says that end result won’t be better. For instance, someone or some group whose reason is blurred with anger and venom will do worse with such power. Instead of creating value, they will destroy it. It is better to focus on creating fair conditions for competition and basic standards than dictating results of competition.
- cryptica 6y agoI also disagree with this. I see recurring failure and shuffling of economic power as essential to a functioning economy and democracy. This is not just my opinion either; Nassim Taleb wrote about this idea called 'Antifragility' which suggests that failure at the company and individual level plays an essential role in avoiding systemic failure (like the too-big-to-fail events of 2008 and 2020).