3 ms·

Actually I am fine with the super rich, they create special dynamics due to creating societies that don’t need any more money and their ego is driven completely

by mrtksn 5y ago

Actually I am fine with the super rich, they create special dynamics due to creating societies that don’t need any more money and their ego is driven completely differently. Usually the first generation sucks but later on you have “old money” and they tend to be respected and productive. I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. There’s a day and night difference between the life’s of people who were given a house as a young adult and those who were not. The difference of life quality of a person who has a fully paid property and a person who is super rich is not that much. The super rich one has more power, of course, but both of them will not feel the pressure to do the things that they don’t want to do. They both would have higher aspirations for stuff they want to do but don’t have means to do - just on different levels.

overgard 5y ago
> I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. In a democracy, do you think it's ok that one person has an incredible amount more influence over society compared to others, not because of their ideas but because they can give more to politicians?
- mrtksn 5y ago
  I think it’s OK as long as they don’t attempt to damage the democratic process. I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad to have people with large monetary power. What it counts is what they do with it. Money is just one kind of a power. Other people can have great charisma, fame, information, access or any other kind of a power that is disproportionately stronger and influential than the average person.
int_19h 5y ago
> they tend to be respected Of course they do - they have money for PR. > and productive They're definitely not productive in proportion to their income.

by mrtksn 5y ago

overgard 5y ago

> I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. In a democracy, do you think it's ok that one person has an incredible amount more influence over society compared to others, not because of their ideas but because they can give more to politicians?

mrtksn 5y ago
I think it’s OK as long as they don’t attempt to damage the democratic process. I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad to have people with large monetary power. What it counts is what they do with it. Money is just one kind of a power. Other people can have great charisma, fame, information, access or any other kind of a power that is disproportionately stronger and influential than the average person.

int_19h 5y ago

> they tend to be respected Of course they do - they have money for PR. > and productive They're definitely not productive in proportion to their income.