18 ms·

Consolidation of money and power into the hands of a few people is most of the most prevailing trends in history. What do you think a king is? Or a conquerer? O

Consolidation of money and power into the hands of a few people is most of the most prevailing trends in history. What do you think a king is? Or a conquerer? Or a Caesar? It strikes me as quite ignorant to posit that wealth and power has never been concentrated into any sort of autocracy. If anything, we live in a unique time and place where military power and financial power are so separated. It is our democratic institutions that enable us to have billionaires without autocracy. Erosion and stagnation of these institutions is the problem. You also seem to completely abandon your previous statement: "Countries without billionaires are mired in poverty. Billionaires can make high risk investments. A million people won't." Additionally, you've responded to arguments I haven't even made about forcing businesses to be involved in politics. Your ideas seem like a loose collection of conservative talking points and fail to make any sort of coherent argument.

WalterBright 5y ago
> Or a Caesar? Caesar gained power through running a business providing people with wine? > You also seem to completely abandon your previous statement Not at all. It is obvious that people who became wealthy through force of arms or using taxation to line their pockets are in a different category.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  I'm not sure you really have a grasp of human history if you think money and force are separate things. That's only a very recent idea. If you look at historical rankings of wealth, by far the richest people were leaders of great empires. They were so wealthy that it's silly to put it in modern terms (1) & (2). Caesar Augustus controlled the entire output of Egypt which was the breadbasket of the Mediterranean world. His person wealth is estimated to be in the $5 to $10 trillion range. More recently, how rich was Stalin when he could literally do anything with an economy making up 10% of global GDP? It's even unclear how much Putin is worth with credible accusations that he recently built a $1B palace (3) and has a wealth in the $200B range. It is only our recently invented democratic institutions that enable billionaires who profit from non-violent sources. I sincerely hope you develop a sense of how important these institutions are. This is my last comment btw, I hope you feel like you've learned something. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_... (2) https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/richest-people-of-all-time.html https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/richest-people... (3) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56007943 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56007943
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > how rich was Stalin Stalin didn't buy his way into power. He took power by force, then used that power to make himself rich. This is not capitalism. As I pointed out, people who take money through force are in a quite different category. > I hope you feel like you've learned something. I'm dumbfounded that you believe that Stalin, Caesar, etc., were free market capitalists gaining their wealth through running a successful business. > It is only our recently invented democratic institutions that enable billionaires who profit from non-violent sources. None have yet turned that into running the country. Note how billionaire Bloomberg's presidential campaign failed miserably. As did Ross Perot's. Rich people in America have not had much of a track record of buying themselves into office, though elected representatives have a tendency to get very rich while in office. Hmmm...

WalterBright 5y ago

> Or a Caesar? Caesar gained power through running a business providing people with wine? > You also seem to completely abandon your previous statement Not at all. It is obvious that people who became wealthy through force of arms or using taxation to line their pockets are in a different category.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
I'm not sure you really have a grasp of human history if you think money and force are separate things. That's only a very recent idea. If you look at historical rankings of wealth, by far the richest people were leaders of great empires. They were so wealthy that it's silly to put it in modern terms (1) & (2). Caesar Augustus controlled the entire output of Egypt which was the breadbasket of the Mediterranean world. His person wealth is estimated to be in the $5 to $10 trillion range. More recently, how rich was Stalin when he could literally do anything with an economy making up 10% of global GDP? It's even unclear how much Putin is worth with credible accusations that he recently built a $1B palace (3) and has a wealth in the $200B range. It is only our recently invented democratic institutions that enable billionaires who profit from non-violent sources. I sincerely hope you develop a sense of how important these institutions are. This is my last comment btw, I hope you feel like you've learned something. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_... (2) https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/richest-people-of-all-time.html https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/richest-people... (3) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56007943 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56007943
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > how rich was Stalin Stalin didn't buy his way into power. He took power by force, then used that power to make himself rich. This is not capitalism. As I pointed out, people who take money through force are in a quite different category. > I hope you feel like you've learned something. I'm dumbfounded that you believe that Stalin, Caesar, etc., were free market capitalists gaining their wealth through running a successful business. > It is only our recently invented democratic institutions that enable billionaires who profit from non-violent sources. None have yet turned that into running the country. Note how billionaire Bloomberg's presidential campaign failed miserably. As did Ross Perot's. Rich people in America have not had much of a track record of buying themselves into office, though elected representatives have a tendency to get very rich while in office. Hmmm...