3 ms·
I didn’t read into his comments to see if he had this level of nuance but the idea that billionaires shouldn’t exist is perfectly valid under a model that suppo
by lovich 1y ago
I didn’t read into his comments to see if he had this level of nuance but the idea that billionaires shouldn’t exist is perfectly valid under a model that supports capitalism as they indicate a market failure.
Everytime someone or some organization is able to accumulate vast amounts of wealth relative to others, it’s indicative of some barrier to entry into the field that ideally we would ruthlessly innovate away.
If he meant “billionaires shouldn’t” exist as in “punish people for success” then that’s just dumb imo
- bombcar 1y agoEven if we liquidate all the billionaires in the US and distribute it equally, it’s less than a new car per person (about $15k). Nice, but one time.
- lovich 1y agoCool, I didn’t suggest that and the downvoting by the community at even hinting that being an ultra rich oligarch is kinda what I was referencing in my other comment. From a purely pro capitalistic view, you should treat the regular occurrence of billionaire creation(adjust this for inflation when a billion doesn’t sound big anymore) as a sign that you have market inefficiencies. If you have a billion dollars from your business, why didn’t other players enter your market back when you were only making 10s of millions of dollars in profit? You obviously have a profitable business, and other people like money too. Something in your market is preventing competition and if you want growth, which I have been told all around that we do want and this is why we adopted capitalism, then the market inefficiency should be identified and removed. That may come in the form of taxation, but it may also come in the form of regulations that improve the market