3 ms·
I think most people would like fewer Elon Musks, not more. Your Everest example also assumes that giving an unfathomable amount of money to Musk is more benefic
by dutchCourage 3y ago
I think most people would like fewer Elon Musks, not more. Your Everest example also assumes that giving an unfathomable amount of money to Musk is more beneficial to society than using it for other purposes. I find that hard to believe.
- creer 3y agoI think it was about recognizing that Everest standing in one place makes it a convenient target. While the reality is that simply guillotining that everest and spreading the blood over the entire population achieves nothing (1mm). One thing that this metaphor does not illustrate is that you cannot spread a billionaire's wealth in cash to the population to pay for rent and food. Nearly the entirety of that wealth is in shares of operating corporations. You would have to find other people / suckers to whom to sell the shares - in exchange for which billions in cash? Or you could liquidate the operating corporations, getting pennies on the dollars (again from whom?) and putting all the workers out of their job. Either way, Musk et al are convenient targets but - aside from building SpaceX and StarLink and providing entertainment, they are irrelevant to your life.