4 ms·

It’s not easy to point to a single instance of “how” but that is not proof that it does not happen. Empirically, wealth is becoming ever more concentrated in an

It’s not easy to point to a single instance of “how” but that is not proof that it does not happen. Empirically, wealth is becoming ever more concentrated in an increasingly smaller amount of the population. This is what un-fettered capitalism leads to and it is clearly a failure in the sense that the flow of money inaccurately captures “value”. Would you argue that the masses are becoming ever more useless and that an ever more tiny percentage of the world deserves to increase their share until they own everything? Are they really providing that much value that the world should be their reward? I think not, and it is government’s job to make amends to the system in order to reverse this run-away accumulation of capital. Instead the wealthy just exert their influence on this system to make the positive feedback loop even stronger. This is not a stable system.

credit_guy 4y ago
> but that is not proof that it does not happen There is not proof that it did happen either. And absent a proof either way, this country has long ago decided to function on the presumption of innocence. Maybe you think it's a good idea to change that?
- bananabiscuit 4y ago
  I’m not sure what you mean, the concentration of wealth is well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    People like wearing blinders because it makes them feel better about wanting to keep the status quo while it actively harms hundreds of millions, if not billions of human lives
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > that is not proof that it does not happen. Next time you should be clearer in your statements. What exactly is “it” here? In the context where you are answering my comment about the alleged wealth extraction, “it” can only mean wealth extraction Now you are saying it means wealth concentration. That’s moving the goalposts.
    - bananabiscuit 4y ago
      Sorry, fair point. To me, they are basically the same thing: wealth concentration happens because of wealth extraction. And if anybody, billionaire or otherwise, believes a capitalist free market system allocates resources/wealth perfectly correctly to those who provide the most value and deserve it the most, then they are wrong, and by just by being wrong, they are complicit in the wealth extraction process.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        In a country like Russia, being wealthy is almost certainly the same as being corrupt. But in a country like the US, people can become wealthy without wealth extraction. Michael Jordan is a billionaire. Tom Brady is not yet, but he will become one at some point. Are they guilty of wealth extraction? Robert Langer, the MIT professor and one of the Moderna cofounder, is also a billionaire. I got a Moderna shot, did Robert Langer "extract" wealth from me? > And if anybody, billionaire or otherwise, believes a capitalist free market system allocates resources/wealth perfectly correctly to those who provide the most value and deserve it the most, then they are wrong, You are saying, those who are naive are wrong. But that goes against one of the most important principles of the US and Western word (and hopefully a principle for the rest of the world too): the presumption of innocence. I choose to subscribe to this principle. If Bezos extracted wealth from his position, then I'd like to see him being prosecuted for that, I'd like to see a court of law decide that he is guilty, and to see that he gets his just punishment. Gates went through that. It was determined that Microsoft abused their monopoly power, in a court of law. Various states and the Federal DoJ have started working on a case against Google and some other Big Techs that they are violating the anti-trust laws. If it turns out to be so, let them be punished. What you are advocating is instead a declaration of the impotence of the justice system. Lot of people are becoming rich by being bad, there's nothing we can do about that, so let's pass some laws to take them down from their pedestals. There are a few things wrong with this. One is that you implicitly renounce the principle of the presumption of innocence. The second is that you are treating an effect rather than the cause. The third is that you'll hurt innocents in the way (like Michael Jordan or Tom Brady). But the most important is that you subscribe to a message of hate. Bernie Sandert's "hate the rich" message is not that different from Trump's "hate the immigrants" (which is the true meaning of "MAGA") message. Hate is a very cheap way to get votes. And hate begets hate.

credit_guy 4y ago

> but that is not proof that it does not happen There is not proof that it did happen either. And absent a proof either way, this country has long ago decided to function on the presumption of innocence. Maybe you think it's a good idea to change that?

bananabiscuit 4y ago
I’m not sure what you mean, the concentration of wealth is well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  People like wearing blinders because it makes them feel better about wanting to keep the status quo while it actively harms hundreds of millions, if not billions of human lives
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > that is not proof that it does not happen. Next time you should be clearer in your statements. What exactly is “it” here? In the context where you are answering my comment about the alleged wealth extraction, “it” can only mean wealth extraction Now you are saying it means wealth concentration. That’s moving the goalposts.
  - bananabiscuit 4y ago
    Sorry, fair point. To me, they are basically the same thing: wealth concentration happens because of wealth extraction. And if anybody, billionaire or otherwise, believes a capitalist free market system allocates resources/wealth perfectly correctly to those who provide the most value and deserve it the most, then they are wrong, and by just by being wrong, they are complicit in the wealth extraction process.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      In a country like Russia, being wealthy is almost certainly the same as being corrupt. But in a country like the US, people can become wealthy without wealth extraction. Michael Jordan is a billionaire. Tom Brady is not yet, but he will become one at some point. Are they guilty of wealth extraction? Robert Langer, the MIT professor and one of the Moderna cofounder, is also a billionaire. I got a Moderna shot, did Robert Langer "extract" wealth from me? > And if anybody, billionaire or otherwise, believes a capitalist free market system allocates resources/wealth perfectly correctly to those who provide the most value and deserve it the most, then they are wrong, You are saying, those who are naive are wrong. But that goes against one of the most important principles of the US and Western word (and hopefully a principle for the rest of the world too): the presumption of innocence. I choose to subscribe to this principle. If Bezos extracted wealth from his position, then I'd like to see him being prosecuted for that, I'd like to see a court of law decide that he is guilty, and to see that he gets his just punishment. Gates went through that. It was determined that Microsoft abused their monopoly power, in a court of law. Various states and the Federal DoJ have started working on a case against Google and some other Big Techs that they are violating the anti-trust laws. If it turns out to be so, let them be punished. What you are advocating is instead a declaration of the impotence of the justice system. Lot of people are becoming rich by being bad, there's nothing we can do about that, so let's pass some laws to take them down from their pedestals. There are a few things wrong with this. One is that you implicitly renounce the principle of the presumption of innocence. The second is that you are treating an effect rather than the cause. The third is that you'll hurt innocents in the way (like Michael Jordan or Tom Brady). But the most important is that you subscribe to a message of hate. Bernie Sandert's "hate the rich" message is not that different from Trump's "hate the immigrants" (which is the true meaning of "MAGA") message. Hate is a very cheap way to get votes. And hate begets hate.