3 ms·

This was the most demonstrative part for me: PERSPECTIVE. The wealthiest person I have spent time with makes about $400mm/year. i couldn't get my mind around t

This was the most demonstrative part for me: PERSPECTIVE. The wealthiest person I have spent time with makes about $400mm/year. i couldn't get my mind around that until I did this: OK--let's compare it with someone who makes $40,000/year. It is 10,000x more. Now let's look at prices the way he might. A new Lambo--$235,000 becaome $23.50. First class ticket internationally? $10,000 becomes $1. A full time executive level helper? $8,000/month becomes $0.80/month. A $10mm piece of art you love? $1000. Expensive, so you have to plan a bit. A suite at the best hotel in NYC $10,000/night is $1/night. A $50million home in the Hamptons? $5,000. My issue with this level of 'earning' is, it feels entirely like stealing from them would be justified since they're most obviously stealing a whole lot from the rest of the world. What products can I buy that don't filter up some percentage into these billionaires bank accounts?

AndyKelley 1y ago
Products that are produced by employee-owned, co-ops, or non profit businesses. Even then, however, those organizations will have operating expenses - for instance renting a building. The only meaningful way to get the money circulating back through the economy is taxation. Or, if that doesn't happen enough and the disparity becomes too great, war and/or collapse of society will chaotically and capriciously redistribute wealth, restarting the cycle. The French Revolution comes to mind.
- opo 1y ago
  > The only meaningful way to get the money circulating back through the economy is taxation. Scrooge McDuck is a fictional character. Rich people don't have all their money hoarded in a pool of gold coins - excess money is invested back into the economy.
  - AndyKelley 1y ago
    An investment is a measure of wealth. It's a credit, which is someone else's debit.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kortilla 1y ago
> since they're most obviously stealing a whole lot from the rest of the world. What definition of “stealing” are you using here? It seems like it somehow includes owning a large equity stake in a profitable or rapidly growing company since that’s how most people that “make $400mm/year” are actually gaining wealth. Claiming that is stealing is pretty dumb considering it’s how everyone that holds equity gains wealth. So when does it become stealing?
- TFYS 1y ago
  The wealth should be going to the people who create it, which is the people who do the work and the customers that use the product. The only reason owners get to take a part of it is the power that ownership of capital gives them. Using power to take what others create is quite close to stealing. It's no different from some feudal lord taking what his peasants create. Legal within our system, but that doesn't mean they deserve it.
  - kortilla 1y ago
    Your house gains value as people improve the are around it. Should they have a stake in the equity in your house?
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  "Stealing" is the most polite, least offensive way I could put it. "Crime against humanity" is closer to the description I would otherwise use. Am I being more clear? The effects of that level of accumulation of wealth and power on the individual, the community, country, and the world are grossly negative. No one who has ever lived deserves that amount / percentage of wealth. Where it gets blurry is "so, what is enough then?" and "what is to be done with anything over the "enough" amount?". I don't know the answer, I don't know when it turns from earnt to evil. I doubt there's a specific number, although specific numbers are required for laws and legislation and regulation, but it would defnitely be a variable amount depending on the individual at which they become irreparably morally bankrupt. The correct answer, however, cannot possibly be: Just let them accumulate more forever. That's inarguably stupid, but that's where we're at.
ta1243 1y ago
> What products can I buy that don't filter up some percentage into these billionaires bank accounts? Very little, that's why wealth tends to increase in the 8-10% a year increase but income doesn't.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

AndyKelley 1y ago

Products that are produced by employee-owned, co-ops, or non profit businesses. Even then, however, those organizations will have operating expenses - for instance renting a building. The only meaningful way to get the money circulating back through the economy is taxation. Or, if that doesn't happen enough and the disparity becomes too great, war and/or collapse of society will chaotically and capriciously redistribute wealth, restarting the cycle. The French Revolution comes to mind.

opo 1y ago
> The only meaningful way to get the money circulating back through the economy is taxation. Scrooge McDuck is a fictional character. Rich people don't have all their money hoarded in a pool of gold coins - excess money is invested back into the economy.
- AndyKelley 1y ago
  An investment is a measure of wealth. It's a credit, which is someone else's debit.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kortilla 1y ago

> since they're most obviously stealing a whole lot from the rest of the world. What definition of “stealing” are you using here? It seems like it somehow includes owning a large equity stake in a profitable or rapidly growing company since that’s how most people that “make $400mm/year” are actually gaining wealth. Claiming that is stealing is pretty dumb considering it’s how everyone that holds equity gains wealth. So when does it become stealing?

TFYS 1y ago
The wealth should be going to the people who create it, which is the people who do the work and the customers that use the product. The only reason owners get to take a part of it is the power that ownership of capital gives them. Using power to take what others create is quite close to stealing. It's no different from some feudal lord taking what his peasants create. Legal within our system, but that doesn't mean they deserve it.
- kortilla 1y ago
  Your house gains value as people improve the are around it. Should they have a stake in the equity in your house?
BLKNSLVR 1y ago
"Stealing" is the most polite, least offensive way I could put it. "Crime against humanity" is closer to the description I would otherwise use. Am I being more clear? The effects of that level of accumulation of wealth and power on the individual, the community, country, and the world are grossly negative. No one who has ever lived deserves that amount / percentage of wealth. Where it gets blurry is "so, what is enough then?" and "what is to be done with anything over the "enough" amount?". I don't know the answer, I don't know when it turns from earnt to evil. I doubt there's a specific number, although specific numbers are required for laws and legislation and regulation, but it would defnitely be a variable amount depending on the individual at which they become irreparably morally bankrupt. The correct answer, however, cannot possibly be: Just let them accumulate more forever. That's inarguably stupid, but that's where we're at.

ta1243 1y ago

> What products can I buy that don't filter up some percentage into these billionaires bank accounts? Very little, that's why wealth tends to increase in the 8-10% a year increase but income doesn't.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]