2 ms·

There's plenty of wealth. The issue is the concentration of wealth at the top. Since the current system is deeply unfair, I'm not sure why adding additional we

by gsk22 3y ago

There's plenty of wealth. The issue is the concentration of wealth at the top. Since the current system is deeply unfair, I'm not sure why adding additional wealth to the system would make it any more fair. The majority of every extra dollar goes to the ultra rich.

jojobas 3y ago
The possibility to attain wealth and pass it on to your offspring has been driven the humanity since before Homo Sapiens. Removing it brings about the outright terror seen every time it gets removed. Change my mind.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  It doesn't need to be one or the other. People should be able to give a good start to their kids, but not to make them as rich as countries when their children didn't do anything to deserve those resources.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Even then wealth mostly lasts 3 generations or so, either by dilution or squandering by the descendants. Trickle down economy of sorts. Exceptions like Rockefellers are rare and far between, and some might argue even they are net positive through their philanthropic efforts.
nemo44x 3y ago
> There's plenty of wealth. The issue is the concentration of wealth at the top. That's just an opinion. What we do know is that as more wealth has been generated via Capitalism more and more people globally (and nationally) have been brought out of poverty to the point where poverty has had to be redefined in certain areas. Capitalism has made starvation a thing of the past and diabetes the new, but better, problem of the poor for example. Poor people can afford to eat meat daily. Not even wealthy could do this in the not so distant past. So instead of fighting over probably wrong opinions we should look at the data and then continue to do more of the thing that has been generating better outcomes for more people. That means more capitalism because that leads to better outcomes.

2 ms·

There's plenty of wealth. The issue is the concentration of wealth at the top. Since the current system is deeply unfair, I'm not sure why adding additional we

by gsk22 3y ago

jojobas 3y ago
The possibility to attain wealth and pass it on to your offspring has been driven the humanity since before Homo Sapiens. Removing it brings about the outright terror seen every time it gets removed. Change my mind.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  It doesn't need to be one or the other. People should be able to give a good start to their kids, but not to make them as rich as countries when their children didn't do anything to deserve those resources.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Even then wealth mostly lasts 3 generations or so, either by dilution or squandering by the descendants. Trickle down economy of sorts. Exceptions like Rockefellers are rare and far between, and some might argue even they are net positive through their philanthropic efforts.
nemo44x 3y ago
> There's plenty of wealth. The issue is the concentration of wealth at the top. That's just an opinion. What we do know is that as more wealth has been generated via Capitalism more and more people globally (and nationally) have been brought out of poverty to the point where poverty has had to be redefined in certain areas. Capitalism has made starvation a thing of the past and diabetes the new, but better, problem of the poor for example. Poor people can afford to eat meat daily. Not even wealthy could do this in the not so distant past. So instead of fighting over probably wrong opinions we should look at the data and then continue to do more of the thing that has been generating better outcomes for more people. That means more capitalism because that leads to better outcomes.