5 ms·

It's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come fro

It's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich. So, the question is, how much of his wealth did he actually create versus simply grab from others? When it comes to MySpace Tom the answer isn't super important, but it is very important for the masses of poor people who make up the vast majority of the planet.

Manuel_D 2y ago
If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation?
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation? If it was state sponsored and without ads, people would get much happier since they are no longer constantly mentally assaulted by ads intended to create cravings or feeling of missing out.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  >Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation? If we recognize that broadly the same pile of money would exist absent Zuck, and instead belong to Tom or Joe or Jane, this provides us a nice justification for not letting Zuck have quite so much money anyway. He's the guy who hit the lotto. It's not such a bad thing to say the government is going to take a lot of it and spend it on poor people.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    No, I'm not seeing the logic behind this at all. If someone invented assembly line production before Ford, that person would accumulate an immense fortune. But said hypothetical person didn't invent assembly line production. Ford did. The lotto ticket is a great analogy. If other people picked the winning numbers, they'd have won a lot of money too! But they didn't. Does that create an obligation for the real winner to compensate all the hypothetical would-be winners?
    - cool_dude85 2y ago
      No. But if the tax man came and the winner said that he shouldn't have to pay because he was simply better at picking lotto numbers than all the hungry chumps out there, we'd recognize it to be a farce.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        Sure, tax evasion is bad! But even after taxes, they'll still be making a lot of money. Is your allegation that Zuckerberg or Musk has engaged in tax fraud? That's a totally different statement than insisting that by simple virtue of having amassed a lot of wealth, they must have deprived others of wealth.
- sleepydog 2y ago
  > If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? How do they make the better or cheaper product? Did they do it by, perhaps, exploiting the people or resources of another, poorer country? Or skirting safety regulations? If so, I would say they are "grabbing from others", yes. And they are motivating other companies to follow along to keep up.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Or they may make a cheaper product by applying novel techniques like an assembly line. Or deploy heretofore unused (or under-used) technologies like electric cars. In the the case of SpaceX the big win was the more efficient gas generator cycle in the Merlin rocket engine. If the allegation is that people made money but skirting regulations or otherwise illegal things, then it's crucial to explain the nefarious practices at play. Not just asserting that someone who is wealth must have acquired that wealth through underhanded means, simply on the basis of being wealthy.

Manuel_D 2y ago

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation?

Jensson 2y ago
> Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation? If it was state sponsored and without ads, people would get much happier since they are no longer constantly mentally assaulted by ads intended to create cravings or feeling of missing out.
cool_dude85 2y ago
>Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation? If we recognize that broadly the same pile of money would exist absent Zuck, and instead belong to Tom or Joe or Jane, this provides us a nice justification for not letting Zuck have quite so much money anyway. He's the guy who hit the lotto. It's not such a bad thing to say the government is going to take a lot of it and spend it on poor people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  No, I'm not seeing the logic behind this at all. If someone invented assembly line production before Ford, that person would accumulate an immense fortune. But said hypothetical person didn't invent assembly line production. Ford did. The lotto ticket is a great analogy. If other people picked the winning numbers, they'd have won a lot of money too! But they didn't. Does that create an obligation for the real winner to compensate all the hypothetical would-be winners?
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    No. But if the tax man came and the winner said that he shouldn't have to pay because he was simply better at picking lotto numbers than all the hungry chumps out there, we'd recognize it to be a farce.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Sure, tax evasion is bad! But even after taxes, they'll still be making a lot of money. Is your allegation that Zuckerberg or Musk has engaged in tax fraud? That's a totally different statement than insisting that by simple virtue of having amassed a lot of wealth, they must have deprived others of wealth.
sleepydog 2y ago
> If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? How do they make the better or cheaper product? Did they do it by, perhaps, exploiting the people or resources of another, poorer country? Or skirting safety regulations? If so, I would say they are "grabbing from others", yes. And they are motivating other companies to follow along to keep up.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Or they may make a cheaper product by applying novel techniques like an assembly line. Or deploy heretofore unused (or under-used) technologies like electric cars. In the the case of SpaceX the big win was the more efficient gas generator cycle in the Merlin rocket engine. If the allegation is that people made money but skirting regulations or otherwise illegal things, then it's crucial to explain the nefarious practices at play. Not just asserting that someone who is wealth must have acquired that wealth through underhanded means, simply on the basis of being wealthy.