3 ms·
The implication is that your property (aka your wealth, in whatever asset form it lives) is not yours to dispose of as you choose. Rather, the GP thinks it shou
by xibalba 5y ago
The implication is that your property (aka your wealth, in whatever asset form it lives) is not yours to dispose of as you choose. Rather, the GP thinks it should either be seized or managed someone else (which is really just seizure under a nicer name).
- HWR_14 5y ago> The implication is that your property (aka your wealth, in whatever asset form it lives) is not yours to dispose of as you choose. That's a bad interpretation. I said is no one should be allowed to accumulate that much wealth.
- dwaltrip 5y agoYou can’t become a billionaire living on a desert island by yourself. You need a high-functioning civilization for innovation and wealth creation. Those who contribute to wealth creation owe something to the civilization that enabled them to do so. We can debate exactly what they owe, but it is clear they owe something.