3 ms·

This is the expected outcome in capitalism. The general flow is money -> commodities -> greater money, and while it's not zero sum eventually that flow necessar

This is the expected outcome in capitalism. The general flow is money -> commodities -> greater money, and while it's not zero sum eventually that flow necessarily concentrates the money into entities that have the most money. Once you become large enough, your "commodities" become other companies that are growing, enabling you to simply purchase growth and income directly with your capital. In game design we call this a snowball effect or a "winners win more" system. It necessarily disadvantages everyone who is not at the top. Unfortunately, there seems to be little appetite for limiting the capacity of capital to accumulate in only a few winners.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
I am more and more convinced that we should set hard limits on size of companies and also individual wealth. I am ok with rewarding hard work but we have reached a point where wealthy individuals and large companies have accumulated too much power. During the last election I was shocked how most people seem to think it’s ok for somebody like Musk to try to influence a senate election and to intimidate other candidates if they don’t fall in line. This should not be acceptable in a democracy. Soon we will have the first trillionaire. That person will probably be more powerful than a lot of countries or US states.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > I am ok with rewarding hard work This is a terrible idea. You should pay for value, not reward hard work. Rewards are for kids.
- marbro 1y ago
  [dead]
pydry 1y ago
>there seems to be little appetite for limiting the capacity of capital to accumulate in only a few winners. Despite many peoples' attempts to say otherwise, this is pretty much the core point of capitalism. It emerged out of mercantilism which was applying the same "winner takes all" aim, except to states rather than individuals.
- mhb 1y ago
  No, it's not.
  - shazbotter 1y ago
    Please be substantive in your replies.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

I am more and more convinced that we should set hard limits on size of companies and also individual wealth. I am ok with rewarding hard work but we have reached a point where wealthy individuals and large companies have accumulated too much power. During the last election I was shocked how most people seem to think it’s ok for somebody like Musk to try to influence a senate election and to intimidate other candidates if they don’t fall in line. This should not be acceptable in a democracy. Soon we will have the first trillionaire. That person will probably be more powerful than a lot of countries or US states.

philipallstar 1y ago
> I am ok with rewarding hard work This is a terrible idea. You should pay for value, not reward hard work. Rewards are for kids.
marbro 1y ago
[dead]

pydry 1y ago

>there seems to be little appetite for limiting the capacity of capital to accumulate in only a few winners. Despite many peoples' attempts to say otherwise, this is pretty much the core point of capitalism. It emerged out of mercantilism which was applying the same "winner takes all" aim, except to states rather than individuals.

mhb 1y ago
No, it's not.
- shazbotter 1y ago
  Please be substantive in your replies.