5 ms·
Then another entrepreneur who hasn't yet made $100M can start a business in the same space. If the market can bear both businesses, then they both win. If it
by SantalBlush 4y ago
Then another entrepreneur who hasn't yet made $100M can start a business in the same space. If the market can bear both businesses, then they both win. If it can't, then they're in direct competition and we're still better off.
This actually sounds better than what we have now: monopoly as the end goal.
- jstanley 4y agoThen why don't we set the cutoff at £10k instead so that the very poorest have a chance? Or set the cutoff at just above the poorest person's net worth. When they make some money they won't be the poorest any more and next year it will be updated to the new poorest person's net worth. That way we make sure everybody has a fair chance at getting rich. Or is it possible that those who have a demonstrated history of wealth creation are actually better at it, and we're all better off if they continue to do more of it?
- Apocryphon 4y agoSure, we can start by applying that cutoff on those with the most £10k's to spare.
- SantalBlush 4y agoWhat you're describing would actually be much closer to a meritocracy than what we have now. The fact that your proposition frightens people shows that they don't actually want a meritocracy at all. Many of those wealth creators you describe would get annhilated in the markets if they were on a level playing field with everyone around the world.
- corrral 4y agoThat might be a good idea! Let's start at a hundreds-of-millions cutoff and see how it goes.