3 ms·

> 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 inc

> 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.
- kortilla 1y ago
  I think you’re very confused about what people with this level of wealth actually own. They don’t have that much cash. They own a company that a lot of other people want a part of so the open market value for shares of that company go up significantly. There is no negative impact or stealing involved here. There isn’t even accumulation. All wealth gains at these magnitudes are through appreciation of existing assets. If the man who sent two pizzas in exchange for 10,000 Bitcoin just sat on that Bitcoin all of this time, he would be “stealing” or conducting a “crime against humanity”. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

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.

kortilla 1y ago
I think you’re very confused about what people with this level of wealth actually own. They don’t have that much cash. They own a company that a lot of other people want a part of so the open market value for shares of that company go up significantly. There is no negative impact or stealing involved here. There isn’t even accumulation. All wealth gains at these magnitudes are through appreciation of existing assets. If the man who sent two pizzas in exchange for 10,000 Bitcoin just sat on that Bitcoin all of this time, he would be “stealing” or conducting a “crime against humanity”. Do you see how ridiculous that is?