4 ms·

Please define "valid" Valid for what?

• ceejayoz 3y ago
  Does Musk's loss of half his on-paper fortune change the "I calculated that with $3 million being an extremely comfortable retirement, he could retire 100,000 times. It's an absolutely obscene inequality." calculus meaningfully? He can now retire comfortably 50,000 times. It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money.
  • cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    What does retirement got to do with whether his wealth is his or not t keep? > It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money. A lot of that money is illiquid wealth that he helped create. Should he give that up to a corrupt politician to distribute "fairly" (cough buy votes for power cough) or should he invest in venues that better humanity. He doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck type vault with gold coins. I have some questions below, not to attack, but to understand this view. 1. Should no one have wealth beyond a limit set up by some politician? (lets leave aside what is a "fair" limit and assume politicians have omniscience in this regard) 2. If yes to #1, what incentive would that give for entrepreneurs to create? 3. Do you think wealth is not created? In the world, has wealth remained constant since 1000 AD (an example date). Wouldn't that imply value of human knowledge, creativity and effort is zero?
    • ceejayoz 3y ago
      #1: A wealth tax on wealth exceeding a certain amount of a couple percent a year. Chances are they can grow it faster than that. #2: Plenty, and do incentives really matter from $100B to $200B? They’re going for high scores at that point, not needs. #3: Sure it’s created. I don’t think the distribution is correct with regards to who’s doing the creating.