3 ms·
This point of view implies that the revered "great men" should be stripped of their wealth and power as much as possible. They're not necessary for history, so
by kubb 4mo ago
This point of view implies that the revered "great men" should be stripped of their wealth and power as much as possible. They're not necessary for history, so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them.
- credit_guy 4mo ago> so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them. Maybe I'm squinting too hard, but it seems to me you are talking about Musk here. We are not allocating any resources to him. He took some risks, started some ventures, some failed, but some succeeded spectacularly. He made lots of people wealthy in the process. I own a few shares of Tesla and they appreciated since I bought them. I did not become rich, but I did benefit from Musk's activities, and millions other people did. The society did not "allocate resources to Musk", and society did not "allocate resources" to J.P. Morgan or to Rockefeller or to Ford or to Bezos.
- terribleperson 4mo agoWhat is the stock market if not a way for society to allocate resources?
- credit_guy 4mo agoSo you'd ban stock markets? Or ban people from investing in companies where one shareholder is a billionaire?
- terribleperson 4mo agoDid I say that? No, I responded to the claim that people were not allocated resources by society.