5 ms·

No, the greater society is actually enjoying the vast majority of value created by a business. You know, the people happily giving their money to the business i

by nickpp 5y ago

No, the greater society is actually enjoying the vast majority of value created by a business. You know, the people happily giving their money to the business in exchange for goods and services.

ModernMech 5y ago
Wealth and value are different things. Value can be created without billionaires capturing most of the wealth.
- nickpp 5y ago
  It’s essential that the people who built those businesses receive a corresponding amount of wealth in exchange: it is their main motivator to create the business in the first place. Businesses which, remember, add a tremendous amount of value to the society - value which is much greater than the wealth their founders receive. No billionaires implies no founders. No founders implies no businesses. No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    99.999% of business owners are not and never will be billionaires. There's plenty of upside and profit for business founders without the promise of them becoming so obscenely rich. > No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century. This is just not a fair characterization; for example the Soviet Union was hardly stagnant -- in the span of 30 years they went from an agrarian society to being the first nation on Earth to launch a satellite and the first man into space.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Big business are the engines that drive the economy. For that you need billionaires. A nation of small businesses sounds attractive to many people, and it's been tried more than once, but it just doesn't work. You're never going to have chip fabs, automaking, steel smelting, oil refining, ship building, turbine making, etc., without big business. The Soviet Union has been described as a third world economy with a first world military. The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Thanks to the free market. BTW, you can buy Soviet built cars. The only people who buy them are collectors who take a perverse pride in their awfulness.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        Again, it's entirely possible to have big businesses without having billionaires. I just don't see why you are set on tying the two concepts together. You seem to think there would be no industry if there were no potential at having more money than you could spend in 1000 lifetimes. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree there, because I'm just not buying that. > The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Depends on who you ask. There's a meme going around right now of a split screen "billionaire space race" with a chyron reading "Millions of Americans facing eviction". Tie that to the story today "Full-time minimum wage workers can't afford rent anywhere in the US" and I really have to wonder what "first world economy" really means. I mean, just today the US government started issuing checks to families with children in order to reduce child poverty... how is that even a thing in a first world economy where billionaires are racing to space? Seems broken to me.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > Depends on who you ask I've asked people who lived in the former Soviet Bloc. I also know that the USSR build a wall to keep people in, and the US builds a wall to keep people out. People are also trying to swim away from Cuba. I don't think you can wish that away. > it's entirely possible to have big businesses without having billionaires The two have always gone together.
        ModernMech 5y ago
        > the US builds a wall to keep people out. People are also trying to swim away from Cuba. I mean, as you say the US is the #1 economic and military power in the world, and they have been imposing crippling economic sanctions on Cuba for 60 years. You really can't evaluate the situation fairly without including that relevant bit of information. > The two have always gone together. Under capitalism, yes, because that's how capitalism works. But one is not a necessary condition of the other. I've already given an example to disprove your assertion.
        nickpp 5y ago

by nickpp 5y ago

No, the greater society is actually enjoying the vast majority of value created by a business. You know, the people happily giving their money to the business in exchange for goods and services.

ModernMech 5y ago

Wealth and value are different things. Value can be created without billionaires capturing most of the wealth.

nickpp 5y ago
It’s essential that the people who built those businesses receive a corresponding amount of wealth in exchange: it is their main motivator to create the business in the first place. Businesses which, remember, add a tremendous amount of value to the society - value which is much greater than the wealth their founders receive. No billionaires implies no founders. No founders implies no businesses. No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  99.999% of business owners are not and never will be billionaires. There's plenty of upside and profit for business founders without the promise of them becoming so obscenely rich. > No businesses implies a poor, stagnant society where every body suffers. Kind of like all the communist experiments of the last century. This is just not a fair characterization; for example the Soviet Union was hardly stagnant -- in the span of 30 years they went from an agrarian society to being the first nation on Earth to launch a satellite and the first man into space.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Big business are the engines that drive the economy. For that you need billionaires. A nation of small businesses sounds attractive to many people, and it's been tried more than once, but it just doesn't work. You're never going to have chip fabs, automaking, steel smelting, oil refining, ship building, turbine making, etc., without big business. The Soviet Union has been described as a third world economy with a first world military. The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Thanks to the free market. BTW, you can buy Soviet built cars. The only people who buy them are collectors who take a perverse pride in their awfulness.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      Again, it's entirely possible to have big businesses without having billionaires. I just don't see why you are set on tying the two concepts together. You seem to think there would be no industry if there were no potential at having more money than you could spend in 1000 lifetimes. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree there, because I'm just not buying that. > The US is a first world economy and a first world military. Depends on who you ask. There's a meme going around right now of a split screen "billionaire space race" with a chyron reading "Millions of Americans facing eviction". Tie that to the story today "Full-time minimum wage workers can't afford rent anywhere in the US" and I really have to wonder what "first world economy" really means. I mean, just today the US government started issuing checks to families with children in order to reduce child poverty... how is that even a thing in a first world economy where billionaires are racing to space? Seems broken to me.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > Depends on who you ask I've asked people who lived in the former Soviet Bloc. I also know that the USSR build a wall to keep people in, and the US builds a wall to keep people out. People are also trying to swim away from Cuba. I don't think you can wish that away. > it's entirely possible to have big businesses without having billionaires The two have always gone together.
        ModernMech 5y ago
        > the US builds a wall to keep people out. People are also trying to swim away from Cuba. I mean, as you say the US is the #1 economic and military power in the world, and they have been imposing crippling economic sanctions on Cuba for 60 years. You really can't evaluate the situation fairly without including that relevant bit of information. > The two have always gone together. Under capitalism, yes, because that's how capitalism works. But one is not a necessary condition of the other. I've already given an example to disprove your assertion.
        nickpp 5y ago