4 ms·

What you highlight is the precise problem I’m addressing 10 richest men in the world owned more than the combined wealth of the bottom 3.1 billion people That

What you highlight is the precise problem I’m addressing 10 richest men in the world owned more than the combined wealth of the bottom 3.1 billion people That means that in order to utilize that “wealth” it needs to be liquidated and no longer accreting value The people who own that have no interest in liquidating that capital for anything that doesn’t personally benefit them. Since a company is a zero sum pie for total ownership whomever controls the distribution of equity controls the pie - unless you’re in a coop or a strong union, your ownership is simply at the will of the richest person in the company If it’s the case that you need capital to make more, then by the power law the only people who can “create wealth” already have it and have no intention of using it for public good So then how do non owners start something? They convince the ruling economic lords that they will do better with their money to give them more back You can’t get money unless a ruling lord guarantees a rate of return. How’s that possibly a good system? Seems a lot like greed based vanity dictatorships

samatman 3y ago
> That means that in order to utilize that “wealth” it needs to be liquidated and no longer accreting value This is objectively wrong. The great majority of owned wealth is capital, and capital is operated. Most of Buffett's net worth is in businesses which he owns: those businesses operate at a profit, creative value for the world at large, some of which accrues to Mr. Buffett. Which he promptly reinvests in more (hopefully) productive businesses.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  No it simply means he artificially controls the liquidity and thus velocity of the company value Please cite your argument that the world is better because the workers of the companies are not controlling the value they create Is your argument thusly: “because buffet can maintain control, he should because so far he has benefited his shareholders”
  - samatman 3y ago
    > your argument that the world is better because the workers of the companies are not controlling the value they create I made no such argument. What I said is that this: > That means that in order to utilize that “wealth” it needs to be liquidated and no longer accreting value Is objectively wrong. Most wealth is actively utilized as investment in productive businesses. Perhaps this is easier to see with the example of Jeff Bezos: most of his wealth is ownership of Amazon, which is a productive and profitable business. It doesn't need to be "liquidated" to be utilized, it's being utilized at rest. This is true for Warren Buffett as well, but I already went over that.

samatman 3y ago

> That means that in order to utilize that “wealth” it needs to be liquidated and no longer accreting value This is objectively wrong. The great majority of owned wealth is capital, and capital is operated. Most of Buffett's net worth is in businesses which he owns: those businesses operate at a profit, creative value for the world at large, some of which accrues to Mr. Buffett. Which he promptly reinvests in more (hopefully) productive businesses.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
No it simply means he artificially controls the liquidity and thus velocity of the company value Please cite your argument that the world is better because the workers of the companies are not controlling the value they create Is your argument thusly: “because buffet can maintain control, he should because so far he has benefited his shareholders”
- samatman 3y ago
  > your argument that the world is better because the workers of the companies are not controlling the value they create I made no such argument. What I said is that this: > That means that in order to utilize that “wealth” it needs to be liquidated and no longer accreting value Is objectively wrong. Most wealth is actively utilized as investment in productive businesses. Perhaps this is easier to see with the example of Jeff Bezos: most of his wealth is ownership of Amazon, which is a productive and profitable business. It doesn't need to be "liquidated" to be utilized, it's being utilized at rest. This is true for Warren Buffett as well, but I already went over that.